over at yahoo.com science news, hungarian scientists.
are now claiming evidence of life on mars -derived from.
spacecraft photographs.
Scientists at an international conference in Philadelphia say they believe a vaccine against the HIV is now feasible....
David Baltimore, one of the conference organisers, told the BBC he was "optimistic, in a way that I wasn't a couple of years ago" that vaccines being tested now "will be able to provide a level of immunity and that will make a difference, both in the United States and abroad".
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1527000/1527826.stm
1. a well-known american president who emancipated the slaves and made a famous speech at gettysburg once said something nice about the bible.
what a fine attitude!
today, millions find true peace of mind and spiritual happiness in the pages of that historical, holy book.
just wondering whether the people responding to this article REALLY didnt know this was parody :)
mox
* http://www.eecs.umich.edu/cs/=a.html.
check out the definition of apostate:.
apostate, apostasy .
i looked thru this guy's theocratese dictionary years ago. its actually quite funny and clever, most of it. in fact, i've wondered whatever happened to this guy (Lynn David Newton from Arizona.) he was an elder at the time, but he seems so open about stuff and obviously web-savvy, i figured it was just a matter of time before he entered cognitive dissonance himself. anyone know anything about him recently?
mox
tonight on abc 20/20 starting at 9:00 pm central time, an actress named ann heche discusses with barbara walters the effects of being molested as a child.
he dad is the perpertrator.
a church going man who led the choir, etc.
this is less about networks dealing with molestation and more about networks dealing with wacky celebrities. anyways, as has been pointed out many times, its whatever there's a market for. nothing to do with concern for molestation victims per se.
mox
i seriously ask this question in light of some ridiculous experiences i have had in recent times.
a while back,a freind of mine purchased a new home.
a housewarming party was planned for her.
i agree, the perspective of ones inside can be helpful, but i wouldnt necessarily take the word of posters on this forum that they are still truly "inside." nytel may very well be inside, but he also (as could anyone on a forum), may be twisting actuality in order to suit his views or simply to aid his side in an argument.
yes, thats true of anyone. you have to determine how much you trust people.
i would guess that many of us, (which is the case with me), already know and talk to ones that are still on "the inside," perhaps ones very close to us, old friends, immediate family, etc., thereby already having a source of information on how things are now. in other words, when i speak of things or happenings in the religion, i am going by more than my past experiences.
im more inside than most here (unfortunately ) but i still value other perspectives.
im not discarding nytels stories and experiences as false, but i do have a hard time taking them as flat out facts of how the organization is blanketly run now.
nor should you.
whats easier to believe is that all congregations are run differently, and the same sin or wrongdoing is treated/disciplined differently in different areas (see above posts). id venture to say hypocrisy runs deep in most if not all areas, and leniency varies.
i agree. i dont think nyt's points really applied to the original discussion about get-togethers, but his description of being able to stand up to elders if there is no written counsel to the contrary rings true with my own experiences. some people seem to be able to get away with grey-area stuff that others didnt and it might be partly a matter of how willing you are to stand up for stuff. i dunno. i think some people just intimidate the elders.
mox
i seriously ask this question in light of some ridiculous experiences i have had in recent times.
a while back,a freind of mine purchased a new home.
a housewarming party was planned for her.
enh, dont be too hard on nyt. hes certainly no apologist. tho i dont necessarilly agree with his original statements about opinion vs policy, i value having his input. i think it certainly is true that when youve been out for a while you start to forget what its really like and tend to just retain the bad memories. at the very least, you dont know how its changed since youve been out in terms of the social atmosphere inside, stuff you can only know by being there. having the input of folks that are still in helps us keep our perspective.
mox
archbishop: mother teresa underwent exorcism .
september 5, 2001 posted: 10:05 am edt (1405 gmt).
by satinder bindra.
o jeez, i read this whole thing thinking it was another Onion article. this is for real??
mox
article in latest christianity today:.
http://christianitytoday.aol.com/ct/2001/004/23.html.
http://www.freeminds.org.
wow, what a quote.
Jeff Tucker, one of the Mount Shasta Kingdom Hall elders, says there were not enough eye-witnesses to go to the police. Tucker believes the family is just trying to cause trouble. "They were disfellowshipped," Tucker says. "They're just trying to create problems and bring reproach on Jehovah's name and his organization."
mox
following the link given by kent,.
i have several observation to make:.
(from the link : http://www.un.org/moreinfo/ngolink/brochure.htm).
zev: would you be so kind as to reproduce the letter here as well?
no really, should i believe the bible?.
i posted the above and topic title several months ago, before the h20 crowd got here.
at the time, the silence was deafening, even from those who indeed believe the bible is inspired of god (btw, that "inspired of god, his word to man" part is implied in the question, so please don't waste your time nitpicking the question).
well i think the point i get from blondie is that 'should i believe the bible?' is a big question with no simple answer. the bible is collection a whole bunch of literature on different subjects. more than 66 books, many of the books are collections of previously written books, ie 'secondary sources.' they say so right in them. theres no argument about them being compliations. the only argument from an inerrantists viewpoint is whether the compliations are inspired and placed a stamp of inerrancy on the original works.
so every piece of the bible you have to take on its merits and get what value you can out of it. i dont see how anyone can make an argument that one part of the bible can be verified therefore another part is also trustworthy when there is no indication that the parts have common sources. even where a common source is indicated, it often cannot be established on the weight of the evidence.
mox
