what were the writers of the bible telling christians when they wrote : “stop keeping company with anyone called a brother who is sexually immoral or a greedy person or an idolater or a reviler or a drunkard or an extortioner, not even eating with such a man.” (1 corinthians 5:11) regarding everyone who “does not remain in the teaching of the christ,” we read: “do not receive him into your homes or say a greeting to him.
for the one who says a greeting to him is a sharer in his wicked works.” (2 john 9-11.
There is a difference between shunning and disfellowshipping. Re-read the scriptures in the OP and ask if they demand organizational action or if this is advise given to individuals, to be applied by individuals?
The former is disfellowshipping, the latter is shunning. And there is a world of difference between them.
well, it looks like the axe has finally fallen on our kh library.
during a deep clean of the local kh, a brother suddenly informed everyone 'whikst cleaning' that all the old books including bound volumes of the watchtower etc was to be chucked in the skip.. from what i heard, some were taken aback by this and quite annoyed that no announcement was made; that no one was given the choice of taking some of these books home to keep.
i mean the entire collection of studies in the scriptures and others that go back an entire century.
During a deep clean of the local KH, a brother suddenly informed everyone 'whikst cleaning' that all the old books including bound volumes of the watchtower etc was to be chucked in the skip.
*sigh* ... all that wasted toilette paper...
ever heard of david runciman?.
he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.
according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.
When Professor Runciman states the obvious, namely that in fifty years time old people will be dead by then and so care more about the present ... <snip>... It is not hate, it is stating the obvious.
Woe, woe, woe... is that really obvious? Are you saying that the older generations necessarily care only about themselves? Are you saying that parents don’t love and think beyond their own lives, and into their children’s futures?
Did it ever occur to the professor that maybe the older generation actually see a problem with centralized authoritarian power and loss of national sovereignty? You don’t think that perhaps those people actually ARE thinking ahead in a way the pro-EU younger generation are not?
ever heard of david runciman?.
he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.
according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.
What Professor Runciman has done with some success is that he has got people to talk about the subject. I doubt that if he had simply said our democracies have become structurally unbalanced there would be any discussion of it on this board or elsewhere. Hyperbole was often used in the Bible to get people to think.
@Earnest, he is not using hyperbole. It’s not like he is exaggerating the claim that youth are underrepresented (as in, “The youth are not represented at all in this country”). This is a policy suggestion - a proposed course of action. He says it is to draw attention to a problem. It is not. He wants to shift the voter base to younger, less responsible, more pro-government voters. He wants to get the political result he believes in. And if the stupid, dumb old people can’t get with it and vote for what is clearly the best policy, then maybe we aught to get the six year olds to do it.
And really, what useful discussion has this spurred? The only discussion this seems to have started is on the topic of his apparent mental retardation.
ever heard of david runciman?.
he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.
according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.
This doesn’t make any sense.So what was the reason for Professor Runciman's suggestion?
It seems like a frivolous suggestion. It is partly frivolous because it's never going to happen in a million years. But as a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our democracies have become, seriously, why not?
As a way of capturing just how structurally unbalanced our alcohol consumption has become, why not allow 5 year old children to buy and consume? I mean, it wouldn’t happen in a million years, of course. But just as a way of illustrating that we have a completely underrepresented population when it comes to alcohol consumption, why not?
We don’t need that illustrated in any way. We don’t need to “capiture” that fact in any way. We know it’s the case, and that is the way it should be ( in both voting any alcohol consumption parody ). They are kids. They don’t vote... they don’t drink.
Just come clean - we can see through the bull shirt. The younger the person, the less able that person is to make responsible decisions for the future - which is why kids don’t vote. It also happens to be the reason the left wants them to vote.
This is another permutation of the same crap that followed the Hillary loss: “But But But if we just had a popular vote, she would have won. That’s what we should do!” Except this is: “But But But ... kids are misrepresented and if we give the vote to kids, THEN we get the result we want. That’s what we should do.”
got a good joke or two?
why not share them.
here is a fun one.. retirement can be fun.
Crowded elevators smell differently to little people.
not to offend or impose my opinion.
but simply i would like to see just news and insights from the local congregation to the top organization level of: downsizing, closings, c.s.a.
personal experiences,unscriptural doctrines of the org.and direct commentary of the above.
Since the WTB&TS is a cult, and as such, the leadership, doctrine, norms, and language tend to set up perminant residence in a member’s head. Given that, don’t you think it would be beneficial to have topics that have nothing to do with the cult? The world is pretty big after all.
ever heard of david runciman?.
he's a professor of politics at the university of cambridge, no less.. he's also a complete retard, for want of a better word.
according to prof. runciman, six year old children should get the vote, so as to counteract britain's aging population.
So are they also eligible for the draft?
banks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.
in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?
banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.
@_Morpheus:
Looks like you just left one cult only to eagerly join another... damn globalist
(Note: by “globalist” I am not implying what might be referred to as an “internationalist”. I mean a person that believes in the globe. Anyone ‘woke’ knows the earth is flat)
banks create money “out of thin air.”empirical studies have been undertaken to prove this thesis and this is the conclusion:.
in the 5,000 year history of banking, banks have been thought of as “deposit taking institutions which lend money”.. 1. what is the legal reality?
banks don’t take deposits and don’t lend money.the public is under this false impression on purpose because the language of banks is not legal language.. so--what is a “deposit”?a deposit is not actually a deposit.
But they can loan money that they don't actually have deposited....
Technically, they can only loan from the deposits, or possibly if the bank borrows from somewhere. If the bank has no deposits, it can’t loan. With fractional reserve banking, the banks loan out a certain percentage of deposits, but also keep that money on the accounts of the depositors. (That’s where the increase comes from... I have all my money, by 90% has been loaned out as well...)
You are on pretty good footing if you say that banks, through FRB, cause a growth in the money supply. You can’t say they just print money or increase an account balance and then loan it out.
Now whether you want to argue if FRB is fraud or not, that’s a different story. (How can I have my money and yet someone else has it too?)
If you are willing to burn an hour, this lecture is pretty good. Notice Salerno doesn’t make value judgements on FRB. Rather, he just lays out what it is and gives examples:
