see what bridget azaz did!.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzbe5yo7uq4.
it's really a way of saying, "You don't deserve to encounter the divine" or worse, "You are incapable of it and not even chosen for this divine encounter."
because of demeaning and errant doctrines like that, wt will remain a "passing" religion, in more ways than one.
who are more gullible, believers in santa or the ones in "the serpent"?
an old man that delivers gifts?
quite possible, grandpa does it all the time!
Yes blondie, but the belief in the talking snake tale is so firmly entrenched among adults. I look at wt speakers and have to remind myself, "this person believes in the talking snake, his arguments rest ultimately on that story". so why is it that wt teachers, fundamentalists in general get away with it?
the whole plot (if accepted at face value) is flaky. A&E never had everlasting life to start with, they relied on the tree of life to maintain it, or was it just part of a rescue kit? so: even even you above, and me here , analyzing, debunking details of the story, kind of help to perpetuate it. or?
(for the record, i’m agnostic who is earnestly seeking an objective, honest and concrete hope for something greater).
“there is evidence of a creator if you just look for it”.
many of us have heard similar sentences from believers regarding proof of creator, proof that their religion is the correct one, proof that their particular sect is the right one, proof that their individual sects interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one, proof that their own personal interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one; the list goes on.. in one of my previous posts, i shared the following thought of mine:.
"--My view of Creation is anything but narrow.--
--Einstein was at most agnostic (many would say atheist)--" unsure:
I meant to say, for the purpose of a discussion of creation, it would be too narrow a range to limit the scope to evolution. Of course, hopefully you have a rich, fuller spectrum of intellectual activity. Creator? someone once suggested that "god" is a mathematician, answer: "I hope not" and we hope unsure is not made in such "gods" limiting image.
re: "Einstein, In his scientific work, he expressed, or explained himself as being in recognition of a creator of the reality he worked with, but, on moral questions, he became to be more and more disillusioned with the supposed divinity. During the tragedies of WW 1 he even wrote: " Where is the old Jehovah? ( from the book " Einstein in Berlin")
so, with his disbelief in a 'dice throwing 'lord", could he be considered a deist?, believer in a non - interventionist creator?
(for the record, i’m agnostic who is earnestly seeking an objective, honest and concrete hope for something greater).
“there is evidence of a creator if you just look for it”.
many of us have heard similar sentences from believers regarding proof of creator, proof that their religion is the correct one, proof that their particular sect is the right one, proof that their individual sects interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one, proof that their own personal interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one; the list goes on.. in one of my previous posts, i shared the following thought of mine:.
Charles, good points. As for me, I have totally separated the question about a creator from the "life after death? or again" question. like your pragmatic approach too.
blondie’s comments you will not hear at the april 2, 2017 wt study (january 2017) (entrust).
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-study-january-2017/these-things-entrust-to-faithful-men/ .
excellent general website: www.jwfacts.com .
During the Sunday "study", eager commenters and their comments were closely watched by those that would suffer from implementing these suggestions, such as grooming others, rivals even, for a coming takeover.
There are going to be interesting reactions, locally to the material.
see what bridget azaz did!.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzbe5yo7uq4.
scriptural proof do you have for this opinion.
comment: Wt teaches, when you examine it, that the partaking of the bread and wine confers the right to everlasting life, a restoration of the adamic condition;- a bringing of the Christian up to a symbolic level of Christ. He, as the second Adam, sacrificed his right to life on Earth, and the anointed are expected to follow.
By that logic, that wt writers expressed in at least iwo publications though, all jws should partake, and then let The Judge, or the "sealing angels" determine who would be entitled to follow, that sacrificial path. to "the axe" if necessary
"Eat and drink all of you."
(for the record, i’m agnostic who is earnestly seeking an objective, honest and concrete hope for something greater).
“there is evidence of a creator if you just look for it”.
many of us have heard similar sentences from believers regarding proof of creator, proof that their religion is the correct one, proof that their particular sect is the right one, proof that their individual sects interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one, proof that their own personal interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one; the list goes on.. in one of my previous posts, i shared the following thought of mine:.
Finding evidence for something that you want to be true is called confirmation bias. 1EJ:
finding evidence is evidence of you being a well prepared researcher, or a insightful theorist. Looking and finding evidence is part of the scientific method.
Confirmation bias would push you to ignore contrary evidence, resist falsification attempts. and
luck happens most often to the prepared.
(for the record, i’m agnostic who is earnestly seeking an objective, honest and concrete hope for something greater).
“there is evidence of a creator if you just look for it”.
many of us have heard similar sentences from believers regarding proof of creator, proof that their religion is the correct one, proof that their particular sect is the right one, proof that their individual sects interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one, proof that their own personal interpretation of a certain religious text is the right one; the list goes on.. in one of my previous posts, i shared the following thought of mine:.
It would not expect us to search half of our lives or go through intellectual gymnastics to arrive at Its existence. R_T:
but that is exactly how Einstein thought about it, in his fruitful thought experiments, trying in a kind of mental game to pry the secrets of creation, the conversion of energy into matter, the time conundrum from the "lord" ,-- by way of dealing with the creation left behind by the creator. Albert must have felt it was set up like that: Here it is ;--use it,-- admire it, --work to find out my characteristics as expressed in my works.
That is the elephant in the room, the cosmos.
who are more gullible, believers in santa or the ones in "the serpent"?
an old man that delivers gifts?
quite possible, grandpa does it all the time!
smiddy, it was only after reading selected bible texts (make sure of all things) that
I actually became aware of the crucial importance of that sneaky snake episode to the whole sin / redemption racket.
I was not fooled as a kid by rumbling sounds in the hallway, but was an adult swallowing it, hook line and sinker. I was past the the little Red Riding Hood and the Talking Wolf age.
Stupid? no, gullible, in awe by the cosmic context of it all.
who are more gullible, believers in santa or the ones in "the serpent"?
an old man that delivers gifts?
quite possible, grandpa does it all the time!
--take more seriously? Who are more gullible, believers in Santa or the ones in "the serpent"?
An old man that delivers gifts? quite possible, Grandpa does it all the time! : believable.
A talking snake? now, or back in time? Billions have believed in it, and in the ramifications* spun from the idea. what gives? * *from Abel to Armageddon, from Eve to everlasting life.
