Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Also everyone, here is a fool proof way to help JWs if you ever see them on the street or at your door, they only trust literature published through their watchtower orginization, so you have to use their app, or their website

 

Start by telling them you are confused about something on there site and have questions, they will be obligated to help you and will trust the sources, Run them through this line of thought using the links

 

Self proclaimed "Prophets" by God


https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1972241

 

Failed prophecies


https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101993008#h=139:2-142:454

 

What does the bible say about false prophets?
Dueteronomy 18:20-22


https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/b/r1/lp-e/nwt/5/18
 

Tell them you just want help understanding and give them your number so they feel obligated to follow through and research it, this will also give them an "out" someone on the outside of the org who is a bible believer but has doubts that they can talk to

 

Finally, when they contact you, ask them who their authority is, the watchtower? Or the word of God? Point out how in Deuteronomy it says you don't have to fear those who falsely prophecy in Jehovahs name, that way they can be less fearful of the threats they receive from their peers, tell them you will read the bible with them cover to cover without the watchtowers influence

1260918535_Forgemapsthumbnail.thumb.png.a0054255c7c5aba3a52c3cef60b4b815.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, S0UL FLAME said:

Since we're on this subject;

 

My dad told me about this troubling event, and both of us discovered that one of the pastors we respect shared it.

 

Very interesting start to 2021.

I'm surprised he was even bold enough to say monotheistic god, not very tolerant of him

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, S0UL FLAME said:

Since we're on this subject;

 

My dad told me about this troubling event, and both of us discovered that one of the pastors we respect shared it.

 

Very interesting start to 2021.

AMENDMENT I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992#139

 

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said he knows the word is not gendered. He used it as a pun intending to pay tribute to his female colleagues and to Rear Adm. Margaret Grun Kibben, the new House chaplain and first woman to hold the role.

Edited by Brad
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Brad said:

AMENDMENT I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Admirable you quoted the American Constitution. However, the issue of him calling upon multiple different gods from several sources, trying to comprise and name them as the same one, is a poor attempt of appeasement. Truly, the God of the Bible is very different from the gods others serve and worship; it wouldn't be a surprise if people would find this either humorous, or insulting.

 

1 hour ago, Brad said:

Cleaver said he knows the word is not gendered. He used it as a pun intending to pay tribute to his female colleagues

This just makes the whole thing more concerning. Making light of prayer is something I can't agree with at all, and doesn't make sense. If you're attempting to speak to a higher power (or powers), wouldn't you do it in meekness, humility, and reverence?

 

That's my two cents, anyway.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's totally fair to feel that way, I don't want to get into if it was right or wrong. I mainly just wanted to make Emanuel's motive clear and correct Doug's claim that the country was founded on biblical principles. The last 6 commandments are incredibly broad and their sentiment is shared amongst virtually every developed nation, regardless of religion. My main gripe was that Doug's claim undermines all the efforts our Founding Fathers made to promote the separation of religion and government, it's boarderline history revisionism.

 

I do agree that the "a-women" pun really missed its mark though lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, icyhotspartin said:


yo

wut?

Yeah it's all about sex. From the theology to theonomy. Several wives, eternal sex, etc.

 

Truly a religion made by men, for men, as you can see 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JB_ said:

20210106_135335.thumb.jpg.3177520cf32cd35bb0c633cd96822a0e.jpg

 

20210106_135817.thumb.jpg.2296a80014beb5eb14407ee333fda7e2.jpg

 

20210106_135806.thumb.jpg.26de564b4f05bb3ee03c8f51bfa71320.jpg

 

fucking gpu the size of ur gaming consoles, maybe Series x too.

 

20210106_183553.thumb.jpg.203f55cbeeff8a934f97127d7576324d.jpg

 

20210106_183542.thumb.jpg.ef11e38829f936173f9f3b3e21bd881c.jpg

 

 

it works so thats good.  didnt wanna post before I finished, god forbid i break it and look stupid

 

 

GPU SAG! 😞

 

is that a refrigerator?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

One of the most common errors is thinking there are “objective definitions” for words. People waste an enormous amount of time endlessly debating about the “correct definition” for some word. They are confused. Language doesn’t work that way. The misunderstanding can be resolved rather simply:

There are no objective definitions for words.

Notice, this doesn’t mean that “there is no objective truth”, or “there is no objective reality”. It’s a specific claim about the nature of language: all definitions are subjective by their nature.

 

http://steve-patterson.com/there-are-no-objective-definitions/#:~:text=There are no objective definitions for words.,are subjective by their nature.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

 

Semantic change (also semantic shift, semantic progression, semantic development, or semantic drift) is a form of language change regarding the evolution of word usage—usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change#:~:text=Semantic change (also semantic shift,different from the original usage.

 

@icyhotspartinfinger-paints-assorted-colors-set-of-30_jsujFK27_526x526.jpg.1e354ae9c0094330f76f354f3a1a3cbc.jpg

 

Edited by SaltyKoalaBear
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

 

One of the most common errors is thinking there are “objective definitions” for words. People waste an enormous amount of time endlessly debating about the “correct definition” for some word. They are confused. Language doesn’t work that way. The misunderstanding can be resolved rather simply:

There are no objective definitions for words.

Notice, this doesn’t mean that “there is no objective truth”, or “there is no objective reality”. It’s a specific claim about the nature of language: all definitions are subjective by their nature.

 

http://steve-patterson.com/there-are-no-objective-definitions/#:~:text=There are no objective definitions for words.,are subjective by their nature.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

 

Semantic change (also semantic shift, semantic progression, semantic development, or semantic drift) is a form of language change regarding the evolution of word usage—usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change#:~:text=Semantic change (also semantic shift,different from the original usage.

 

@icyhotspartinfinger-paints-assorted-colors-set-of-30_jsujFK27_526x526.jpg.1e354ae9c0094330f76f354f3a1a3cbc.jpg

 

It doesn't matter that words change. We're not time travelers having arguments with people from the 1600s. We're talking to eachother, right now, in 2021. What really matters is that in any given moment, words can be (and usually are) agreed upon, with objective definitions as to be able to communicate. And if they aren't, you just define them real fast for eachother and continue. Otherwise, we would just never be able to get points across. I understand your post, and you understand this one, which means that words are working well as they should, as tools that mirror reality. So, unless you're willing to say that reality itself is in flux - this isn't a strong argument.

 

And yes, words can mean different things depending on connotation and context, but this is where more words come in, especially ones directly compared to reality. That's why Jesus taught in parables, there's nothing more understandable than separating wheat and chaff to someone who's a farmer, or a pearl of great price being worth all a mans posessions to anyone who understands value as an idea (so everyone) and so on. It's not an infinite cycle of guessing what people mean. If that were really true, if you really believed that, then you wouldn't be using words to try and convince us of something you think is objectively true about how words work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SaltyKoalaBear said:

 

One of the most common errors is thinking there are “objective definitions” for words. People waste an enormous amount of time endlessly debating about the “correct definition” for some word. They are confused. Language doesn’t work that way. The misunderstanding can be resolved rather simply:

There are no objective definitions for words.

Notice, this doesn’t mean that “there is no objective truth”, or “there is no objective reality”. It’s a specific claim about the nature of language: all definitions are subjective by their nature.

 

http://steve-patterson.com/there-are-no-objective-definitions/#:~:text=There are no objective definitions for words.,are subjective by their nature.

 

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

 

Semantic change (also semantic shift, semantic progression, semantic development, or semantic drift) is a form of language change regarding the evolution of word usage—usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. In diachronic (or historical) linguistics, semantic change is a change in one of the meanings of a word. Every word has a variety of senses and connotations, which can be added, removed, or altered over time, often to the extent that cognates across space and time have very different meanings. The study of semantic change can be seen as part of etymology, onomasiology, semasiology, and semantics.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_change#:~:text=Semantic change (also semantic shift,different from the original usage.

 

@icyhotspartinfinger-paints-assorted-colors-set-of-30_jsujFK27_526x526.jpg.1e354ae9c0094330f76f354f3a1a3cbc.jpg

 

 

I mean... You didn't use any of your own words, and you used an image. What am I supposed to understand from this? Maybe that you wish to communicate non-conceptually, or with pre-packaged and approved definitions by skeptics who disavow definitions altogether? Are you saying that you are happy to continue fingerpainting, or are you saying that I am the one who, through the use of language and words, have fallen into the trap fingerpainting, which therefore undercuts anything I might say on the subject? Is this a game of gotcha?  Maybe all of the above?

 

Sorry, I can't understand you. Please try again.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think it is important in a complex conversation to be consistent in how you use words, even if your vocabulary isn't standard, so people don't misunderstand you and start the Church of Jehovah Mormons of the Golden Dawn of IsraelTM.

 

Whew, that took some really deep thought and so many words. I'm fucking sick. Did you see all the points I made? I think I am going to prepare myself a nice glass of my own fart so I can fully indulge in my essence. sniffs... ahhhhhhhh

 

Remember people you are no better than anyone and if you think that you are you are setting yourself up for a fall it is inevitable. Except me. I'm fucking sick.

 

Fun/funny read as usual. much love you trash cans. Note: I find humor even in generally serious conversations because it's what I do has nothing to do with someone or something being stupid. 

 

I hope people realize I am contradicting myself as part of the joke. Probably not though because everybody is so sick on this website. Who actually reads responses, Multi has been responding to people with the same cookie cutter response for 3 years now even when it doesn't make sense. In before somebody thinks this isn't a joke to make themselves feel superior. You know your in a dog period of time when you have to watch how you make a joke. haha ❤️

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, purely fat said:

I do think it is important in a complex conversation to be consistent in how you use words, even if your vocabulary isn't standard, so people don't misunderstand you and start the Church of Jehovah Mormons of the Golden Dawn of IsraelTM.

 

Whew, that took some really deep thought and so many words. I'm fucking sick. Did you see all the points I made? I think I am going to prepare myself a nice glass of my own fart so I can fully indulge in my essence. sniffs... ahhhhhhhh

 

Remember people you are no better than anyone and if you think that you are you are setting yourself up for a fall it is inevitable. Except me. I'm fucking sick.

 

Fun/funny read as usual. much love you trash cans. Note: I find humor even in generally serious conversations because it's what I do has nothing to do with someone or something being stupid. 

 

I hope people realize I am contradicting myself as part of the joke. Probably not though because everybody is so sick on this website. Who actually reads responses, Multi has been responding to people with the same cookie cutter response for 3 years now even when it doesn't make sense. In before somebody thinks this isn't a joke to make themselves feel superior. You know your in a dog period of time when you have to watch how you make a joke. haha ❤️

 

I think we all really appreciate how you make douchey posts like this, and then try to protect yourself with "lmao this is just a troll im such a trol LOL trollface xd🧈🧈🧈"

 

You're afraid to actually say what you think, you always have been, and the only time you ever did came with a mental breakdown and a promise to stop posting. You aren't funny, your maps suck, and you didnt make storm peaks.

 

in before you actually take this seriously lmao get godded

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...