lol .
a true story from snopes:.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/wright.htm.
Good point, Classicist. To me, the real issue here is not just the separation of church and state (although I agree with it), but that the clergyman took what should have been a unifying, uplifting moment and turned it into a political rant.
If the pastor got himself elected to the House of Representatives, he'd be perfectly entitled to stand up and speechify about his opinions. But when you're a clergyman brought in to open the session with prayer, that's not your job.
i've just been informed that there are a growing number of spanish speaking jw apologists who are flooding the spanish speaking net with nonsense about the usual so-called "apostate lies", and attempting the usual lying defenses of the jw organization.
apparently these are mostly mexican jws.
some of the defenses seem to be relatively new in the sense that they've not been covered before in english.. since i don't speak spanish, and i know of few present spanish jw-critical resources, there's a real need for spanish speaking ex-jws to respond to these typically braindead attacks.. i've also been informed that a brazilian jw has been translating the spanish jw defenses into portuguese, so if there are any portuguese speakers willing to help out, please let me know.. alanf
You have a PM.
don't get me wrong here.
nor will i deny that there are men and women of science who do not work for money or fame or glory, but rather for "truth", and even for the good of the human race and this planet.. scientists are supposed to be unbiased in their research using the universally accepted "scientific method", being completely objective, and working in the sterile environment of the laboratory, removed from outside contamination and social influence.
they themselves are supposed to approach a subject or investigation with patience and open-mindedness, without prejudice or pre-conceived notions.
Rod... have you read Thomas Kuhn's The Nature of Scientific Revolutions? It's an excellent (albeit very densely written) book, and is right on point to your initial post.
Kuhn points out that all scientists (at least the practitioners of mature sciences) work within a paradigm. This paradigm can easily be dismissed as "bias", "tunnel vision", etc. But the use of a paradigm is necesssary for science to advance. Without a paradigm, it's difficult to even define useful questions or experiments, let alone interpret the results. Without a paradigm, scientists spend a lot of time arguing over basic methodologies and premises, instead of gaining new knowledge.
So unless a paradigm is falling apart, scientists tend to dismiss any work outside the paradigm, and rightly so. It's as if a construction crew is busy working on a building, and when they are halfway through, one worker says: "Let's just scrap this building and start a new one!" It's a major waste of effort.
Progress in science--even new paradigms--comes from people who are wrestling with the existing problems and paradigms of their field, not from lone "geniuses" who ignore the wisdom of the entire scientific community.
Granted, I'm sure there are some very bright and talented scientists who lose out on the game of grants and financial support. There's a large measure of luck--and undoubtedly political savvy--involved. But when I meet some lone outlier who believes that they're right and the entire scientific community is wrong, my first thought is not that they have been "criticized, ridiculed, branded, even expunged from their little academic club" to maintain the status quo. I find it far more likely that they're simply wrong.
sorry if this has been covered already.. my wife told me today that in one of the new watchtowers it says that no one can know for sure if an apostate will be ressurected or not.
apparently, they draw us to the experience of solomon, who the bible writer still said was burried with his forefathers, indicating that he was still kosher fodder for ressurection.. is this new?
i hope i am not causing undue sensation if this is not the case as my wife misread, or something.. i don't have the desire or energy to go through my wifes magazines.
IP_SEC wrote:
so which is it? is this not a radical departure from what they previously held re: the unforgivable sin, etc?
In that same thread, Gumby showed a clear quote from '82 saying that apostates go to Gehenna. I'm not aware of anything more recent contradicting that.
So if this new article says what people are saying it says, it would definitely be a reversal, as far as I'm aware. But I would be curious to see the exact text of the article.
(And yeah, I know it's all stupid word games. But unfortunately, these stupid word games still mean a lot to our families.)
.
a good friend of mine got in big ass trouble for this..... photoshopped to remove his name.
if he gives me any more good pics- youll be the first to get em!
DannyBloem wrote:
In my language that word looks very much like "free and willing". So we changed the card for an elder to "free and willing". he did not notice. Walked half of the day with it, and wondering why people looked at him. Until he finally discovered it...
Too funny! If I may ask, what exactly were the words in question?
RichieRich wrote:
At his TMS last night, they announced, "A matter concerning {Richie's Friend} has been dealt with by the elders."
Is your friend baptized? I could be wrong, but I thought the locution "A matter concerning ... has been dealt with" was reserved for unbaptized publishers? Or is that the new formula for reproof?
sorry if this has been covered already.. my wife told me today that in one of the new watchtowers it says that no one can know for sure if an apostate will be ressurected or not.
apparently, they draw us to the experience of solomon, who the bible writer still said was burried with his forefathers, indicating that he was still kosher fodder for ressurection.. is this new?
i hope i am not causing undue sensation if this is not the case as my wife misread, or something.. i don't have the desire or energy to go through my wifes magazines.
If memory serves, Hades = Sheol = death with the possibility of a resurrection; Gehenna = eternal destruction. (According to the JWs.)
Of course, that's actually a distinction not found anywhere in the Bible. Most uses of Hades or Sheol, as far as I can recall, simply mean 'the grave' i.e. death, with no additional theological connotations.
sorry if this has been covered already.. my wife told me today that in one of the new watchtowers it says that no one can know for sure if an apostate will be ressurected or not.
apparently, they draw us to the experience of solomon, who the bible writer still said was burried with his forefathers, indicating that he was still kosher fodder for ressurection.. is this new?
i hope i am not causing undue sensation if this is not the case as my wife misread, or something.. i don't have the desire or energy to go through my wifes magazines.
I wonder if this is the same article IP_SEC was talking about? http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/92151/1.ashx
.
by their choice of words?
do bigger words equate to higher intelligence?.
Sesquipedalianism ipso facto necessitates supranormal cognition.
she did this when her parents were going to be able to support her, but then her dad lost his job etc.
and shes out on her ass.
so here's our convo... and this was mid way in, the first part is irrelevant... .
He of the public talk said...
Don't go trying to call at the front door
Look who's talking
she did this when her parents were going to be able to support her, but then her dad lost his job etc.
and shes out on her ass.
so here's our convo... and this was mid way in, the first part is irrelevant... .
Any body know any good ways to introduce the other things? (ie UN NGO?)
I may be wrong, but I don't think UN NGO is the way to go. It's not something that impacts her life very directly; and unless she's the type that really knows doctrine, she'd probably just be like "what's the big deal?"
But stuff that actually affects her directly, like the school stuff--that's the ticket. The kind of hypocrisy that she can see at an everyday level.
