KnicksFan4Realz
Benchwarmer
Ohh please,
IF EVERYONE LISTENED TO GOD WE'D ALL BE ****ING DEAD RIGHT NOW.
IF EVERYONE LISTENED TO GOD WE'D ALL BE ****ING DEAD RIGHT NOW.
News flash to the most brilliant mind on earth, people are without religion more and more each generation now. This is why fornication is so ramped now. It's like, I don't wanna say, duh.. but DUH!
Your answer for seeing if your compatible with a person is to test drive it. But then, why buy the cow, when the milk is free? What makes me value a person based on sex? Is sex going to pay the bills? I mean, I would think I'd have to talk to them sometime. What if they are not interesting intellctually, but they drive you nuts in the bedroom? What if their values are way left of yours?
THE FAMILY STRUCTURE IS JACKED UP IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO TEST DRIVE, AND NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW SERIOUS FORMING BONDS REALLY ARE!
It would simply be solved if the world was more morally aware and acted with self control when it comes to sex. No one needs to have 2 sexual partners. GREED MAKES THEM FEEL THEY DO.
No one needs to have sex before marriage. Uncontrolled sexual desire makes them peer into it.
No one needs to kill anyone. Wrongful desire of some sort makes one do such.
As long as people think premarital sex is ok, the family structure will be shot. And the current world situation is ample proof. I don't need a science degree to see this. Just look around. Your solution is basically, still have sex people, but be responsible enough to use condoms, while your testing out your mates sexual appetites and potential future.
If people listened to God and did not do this, they'd therefore take sex, and marriage to be serious things (which they are if you did not know) And it would be viewed in a different light than it is now. This is much more responsible than your solution, and it actually beats it over the head with a sledge hammer. This would improve value and worth in both male and female, while your way suggests our bodies are just sexual test tubes, that somehow give the overall individual worth if they are compatible in bed.
And I'm glad more and more people are without religion in this time and age. The time for magic and sorcery and over and people need deal with real world, now here on Earth..then contemplating their imaginary one in the skies above. Fornication has always been as you put it "rampant"...all the "begating" as the Bible puts it...you think every single one of those couples were married? Or better yet all humans that came previously were getting married before they had sex? Do you truly believe that...or are you just that stupid?
One should get married because their partner they feel makes them complete. But it also has to do what you feel marriage is in the first place. If you are already in a good stable relationship, and are monogamous to each other...then that is marriage. The only difference is you don't have some superficial piece of paper to say you've married them. After all, you got plenty of folks whom are married and commit adultery..so we KNOW FOR A FACT...marriage does not mean fidelity automatically. Having a stable relationship however, is the path to having a union in which no one cheats.
Marriage does not make you magically conform to a set of behaviors you already weren't going to commit in the first place. If you just cannot see yourself only have sex with one person the rest of your life, you should not get married. PERIOD. Commitment has to come before marriage, marriage does not create true commitment if this was the case like I said, adultery could not happen.
And as well your linking two very different things. Sex is part of the aspect of the relationship, not the whole part. Okay the sex is great. But what are the other qualities he or she has? But do not sit here and lie and state that sex is too not apart of relationship building, to deny that it is..is lying.
The family structure is ****ed up because people have pre-concieved notions about what marriage is not only about as far as control and domination in which this aspect clearly comes from religion. But also because they simply pick partners not suited to their tastes, other than sexual desire. If you pick a mate to have children with...marrying her or him is not going to fix the fact you two do not get along.
I don't care how much you try and sit there and lament about how marriage would fix family structure, you're just simply denying the bigger problems contained within most marriages..globally. Does not matter whether two parents are married in order to be good parents...matters if the two people that had the kids can get along first...and still be responsible in raising their kids despite their philosophical differences.
Having sex before marriage is necessary like I said in order to avoid the problems with the relationship down the line. If humans are responsible for their own choices...and your GOD backs this..then he needs to shut the **** up about what goes in on a human relationship and you folks as well.
But let me ask this...Did you have sex before marriage?
People being responsible for themselves in all aspects including sexuality, is the first step in having the ability to be responsible for one creating a sustaining a stable family structure. Not the other way around. Plenty of marriages out their of "convenience" because someone got knocked up, then get married..then eventually wind up breaking up..why does this happen that Mr. Jesus??
No your point beats nothing over the head with a sledge hammer, it simply tries to use a sledge hammer to drive a nail through a wall as long as the Great Wall of China...without first recognizing that in order to dismantle and take the wall apart you must look at it's architecture.
Once again you lose and your views are that of simple being. Leave these complex issues for those of us who are actual adults and think about these things with a rational practical basis. Go do what it is you folks do best...pray for a miracle. We are too busy working on solutions.
What's bad about it, is that it's a rule not to kill, instead of telling you why it's evil, why it's selfish, heartless. This lack of understanding is why the world is still, and will forever be screwed up. You can tell people to do things that are good, but they're not really virtuous for following those things, without a good understanding of what those things mean, not even why you should follow them: that's just a value (this is better than that) judgment. I'm talking about seeing how beautiful and life-saving something like compassion is.
The religion you follow, and all others, have failed. If they hadn't failed, you would know what I just said, everyone would. And, since I don't know half of what I'm talking about, you'd be telling me something extraordinary, instead of ordinary and typical. I mean that without any disrespect or cynicism. I know you believe, but I can't understand why.
So a young lady grows up being raised with your p.o.v.
Sex is ok so long as condoms are used at any age she decides to let her hormones rage beyond her control. Say this happens now at 13. Clearly, she is not ready for a REAL relationship at 13. But she just can't control her hormones. And besides, her dad says sex is cool as long as she uses condoms. This continues throughout her life, boyfriend after boyfriend, or as you basically put it, test drive after test drive after test drive, after test drive. When she gets of age to be ready for marriage, would she really be better off than a woman who abstained from sex until she was mature enough to know she is ready to marry and wait for sex until then?
You really wanna say that? Are you apt to marry a regularly test driven woman, or one fresh to the lot?
Marriages of convenience stem from people usually fornicating before they are married. If they had waited until they were sure about eachother, it would have given it added chance to work. Mainly because they know they did it for the right ALL the right reasons. So again , God's way is best. Because marriage before sex solves the right reasons. It would make sure that you got involved for much more than a test drive, or kids before marriage, etc.
When did I say she was a whore? I said she was test driven. Test drives with rubbers are ok in this world according to you. You apparently would prefer a test drive then not. Wierd but true.Anyone engaging in safe sex at any age is responsible. Period. Doesn't matter whether she is 13, 15, 17, 23...30..etc. Clearly you do not know if she is controlling her hormones or not..such is an assumption. There is no difference in the hormonal needs of a 13 year old..or 23 year old. You know if you feel the desire to get laid or not. The only question is are you going to act on them responsibly.
It's funny how you equate someone practicing safe sex as a whore. That is interesting however, says alot about your state of mind.
So you are saying the woman who abstains from sex does not know who she is? Or what she wants? Or is secure in herself? I would tend to think the woman who abstains is secure. It's clear she has a plan, and knows both what she wants and does not. To her, she is willing to wait until she finds the right life partner for her, rather than the right test drive which is usually only temporary. This will likely lead to her if she finds such a partner being willing to please him in every way possible, not just sexually, out of true love and appreciation.A woman who has had sex before marriage knows what she wants..knows who she is...she has security in herself. A woman who has never had sex before marriage does not know what she likes sexually, chances are she's been repressed into submission of not being sexual from religious traditions implanted in her since birth by a male who wishes to control her.
If people took serious the things that come with having a mate, not just sex, then they would be more apt to deal with what comes with making the choice of commitment. What their upbringing is, goals, moral makeup, like and dislikes, these are all important factors in choosing a mate. Having good sex with someone, but not much else about them is the problem people are having staying commited. If good sex is really more important than the overall being of your partner, than you should never really want a true partnership. Because all you really care about is a really good orgasm, not the person who helped you achieve it.You're still putting out the same bullshit that no sex before marriage leads to a committed relationship. Commitment leads to a committed relationship not marriage. Plenty of married folks out there, that cheat...said the I do's...and cheat. Why? Because people ultimately don't want someone that can't give them what they feel they need. Like I said two people must have sexual harmony before even considering a marriage..because getting out of marriage after it's made you unhappy is more problematic and hurts a lot more people than having sex a few times with condoms could've ever done.
Well then those people have just proven they are too selfish to be in a marriage. If they had made sure they would be absolutely willing to please their eventual partner for the rest of their lives, with no hidden, selfish motives, it would absolutely work. But no. Our society today is about getting yours. Not looking for the benfit of others. Therefore, most people don't realize how much work a marriage is. So it becomes about them as an individual, instead of team, as it should be.Most people cheat in marriage and marriage's fail because one mate is "not happy".
But what leg do you have to stand on? People are doing things the way you say is best. AND THE WORLD SUCKS BECAUSE OF IT.GOD's way the best? If his is the best, the mankind is truly married to it's own idiocy. And you are proof of this..as well other like you.
Yes. And I see now that waiting til I was ready for marriage would have helped me tremendously in many areas. I see no benefit of test drives, and before I became spiritual, I did a lot.. and I mean a lot of test driving. So I am speaking from both persepctives.Did you have sex before marriage?
And you never did answer my question about your two daughter's should they decide in a moment of rebellion to reject what you've told them about sex...would you rather they end up pregnant? Or have had sex with a guy who used a condom?
I kind of agree with both of you. If a girl is 13, I don't think she should be having sex. Even if she's 16 or 17, I don't think she should be having sex. I don't think a male should be having sex at that age. These days, you have 10 year olds having their first period, which is the result of how sexualized our society has become.
Did you know that, in certain parts of the world, girls get their first period at 15 or 16? On principle, I'm against pornography, meaningless sex, etc. But, I think married couples can have meaningless sex, marry each other merely out of looks or money.
Don't get me wrong, I don't believe married couples need to be in love. If I don't find the "one," I might, someday, just find someone who I can at least be content with. I think that's enough.
But, if you do find love, you don't need to get married to make your love sacred or worthy of respect. You just need to truly care about each other, needs, through tough times and good, and good things will sprout up all around you. That's the sign that you've done right, whether or not you marry.
When did I say she was a whore? I said she was test driven. Test drives with rubbers are ok in this world according to you. You apparently would prefer a test drive then not. Wierd but true.
The minute you give a license to sex is ok as long as you use condoms, you give a license for iresponsibilty. Because now it's not about waiting for the proper time you have a handle on your physical emotions or such, you bang til you gather them. IF YOU EVER DO!What the hell does a 13 year old know about themselves? DID YOU FEEL READY FOR THE WORLD AT 13? But what if the condom breaks and it goes unnoticed? Were they then irresponsible? Last thing on a 13 year olds mind is family, or longterm partner. And having sex under those circumstances is simply irresponsible. If you don't plan to have this partner in your life longterm, all they are is an orgasm. That's promoting love? That is more loving than waiting until you love a person enough to marry them and make them your life long partner? SO SEX OUT OF URGE TRUMPS SEX FROM MARRIAGE AND TRUE LOVE AND WORTH?
So you are saying the woman who abstains from sex does not know who she is? Or what she wants? Or is secure in herself? I would tend to think the woman who abstains is secure. It's clear she has a plan, and knows both what she wants and does not. To her, she is willing to wait until she finds the right life partner for her, rather than the right test drive which is usually only temporary. This will likely lead to her if she finds such a partner being willing to please him in every way possible, not just sexually, out of true love and appreciation.
Your idea of partnership hinges on how a woman can please you sexually. It's quite apparent that is of utmost importance to you. But it does not mean it works as a system for mankind in general. In fact, by the way the world is, your way sucks. Cuz people are doing it your way, and the world sucks.
If people took serious the things that come with having a mate, not just sex, then they would be more apt to deal with what comes with making the choice of commitment. What their upbringing is, goals, moral makeup, like and dislikes, these are all important factors in choosing a mate. Having good sex with someone, but not much else about them is the problem people are having staying commited. If good sex is really more important than the overall being of your partner, than you should never really want a true partnership. Because all you really care about is a really good orgasm, not the person who helped you achieve it.
And that is the problem with sex before marriage.
Well then those people have just proven they are too selfish to be in a marriage. If they had made sure they would be absolutely willing to please their eventual partner for the rest of their lives, with no hidden, selfish motives, it would absolutely work. But no. Our society today is about getting yours. Not looking for the benfit of others. Therefore, most people don't realize how much work a marriage is. So it becomes about them as an individual, instead of team, as it should be.
If each mate worked to please the other by putting their mate before them, it would work out fine. PERIOD! AND THAT IS GOD'S WAY.
But what leg do you have to stand on? People are doing things the way you say is best. AND THE WORLD SUCKS BECAUSE OF IT.
Yes. And I see now that waiting til I was ready for marriage would have helped me tremendously in many areas. I see no benefit of test drives, and before I became spiritual, I did a lot.. and I mean a lot of test driving. So I am speaking from both persepctives.
I raise my daughters to respect God, to respect themselves. Test driving is not a part of self respect, I don't care what you say. I hope if the system was to go on long enough, my kids, boys and girls alike, respect God and themselves enough to wait for marriage.
If they don't nothing I can really do. And if they use a condom or not is not really the issue of debate. But of course I would hope they'd use condoms rather than not. But that still does not make them responsible. It just gives them a false sense of security. Only doing God's will, which in turn really only benefits us, is responsible. And premarital sex, condoms or no condoms is not the answer.
Just look around for the proof.
The world as a whole is living apart from God. And it's messed up. People thinking like you are in it. This contributes to it. Sorry. Recite all the rap songs, talk about all your degrees, call me all the names you wish, the fact is, the world as we know it right now, is a very Godless world. And it does not take a rocket scientist to know if people followed Jehovah's laws and principles, it would not be this way.
Enjoy.
Can't argue with facts about your folks ABSTINENCE only programs...THEY DON'T WORK IN THE REAL WORLD.
Things like these happen at times with imperfect people. A similar attack was brought on in the last thread. Refer there for a response.Although the Watchtower claims that they never discriminated against any race, discrimination has been argued to exist within its teachings.For example Charles Taze Russell taught that blacks would become white and Hebrew after Armageddon.
The Watchtower taught also that blacks were degraded because they were descendants from Ham and that they need to remove their "curse" of dark skin. The Watchtower thought that blacks were in general less interested and had less intelligence concerning the Bible. This teachings were taught as late as 1929. The Jehovah's Witnesses practiced segregation of blacks until the late 1950s[71] and taught that blacks have "servant" and "teachable" qualities as recent as 1952.
The modern Watchtower admitted that some white Witnesses do not support the high non-racist standards of their organization. Some Afro-American Watchtower members complained that there is a lack of blacks in the governing body.
Predictions such as the following have appeared in various Watchtower publications:[78]
1917: In 1918, God would begin to destroy churches "wholesale" and church members by the millions.
1922-1923: The resurrection of the dead would occur in 1925. In preparation for the 1925 date, the Watchtower Society acquired a property in California and built a mansion they called Beth Sarim. The property was to house people such as Abraham, Moses, David, and Samuel, whom they thought would be resurrected to life in 1925. When they failed to resurrect, their leader, Joseph Rutherford moved in.
1938: In 1938, Armaggedon was too close for marriage or child bearing.
1941: There were only "months" remaining until Armageddon.
1942: Armageddon was "immediately before us."
1969: Human existence would not last long enough for young people to grow old; the world system would end "in a few years". Young Witnesses were encouraged not to bother pursuing tertiary education for this reason.
1969: Christ's thousand-year reign would begin in 1975.
There was a considerable amount of related speculation in Watchtower publications in the years leading up to 1975.
1984: There were "many indications" that "the end" was closer than the end of the 20th century.
1914 (generation): It was taught that Armageddon would take place before the death of those who were alive in 1914. This teaching was abandoned in 1996. Jehovah's Witnesses currently believe that no certain year can be established for Armageddon to occur.
Witnesses teach that "freedom to make decisions [is] to be exercised within the boundaries of God's laws and principles", and that "only Jehovah [is] free to set the standard of what is good and bad."
As mentioned above, however, it is believed that such principles can only be understood through association with Jehovah's Witnesses.
In practice, members may face sanctions if they do not abide by regulations set forth by the leadership, which presents itself as the channel through which God instructs members about "what is good and bad".
If a member of Jehovah's Witnesses does not comply with the organisation's interpretations, they can be excommunicated, termed disfellowshipping. This involves being shunned by all members of the religion, including any family members that do not live under the same roof.
Due to the social nature of the religion, being shunned can isolate a member in a very powerful way and can be devastating if everyone in a member's social circle participates in the shunning. Jehovah's Witnesses say that disfellowshipping is a scripturally-documented method to protect the congregation from the influence of those who practice serious wrongdoing.
Prior to 1981, if a member disassociated from the religion but was not disfellowshipped, the practice of shunning was not required and normal contact could be maintained. A policy change in 1981 required that all who were considered to have disassociated by their actions were to be treated in the same way as a member who had been disfellowshipped for wrongdoing. The new policy meant that congregation members are not informed whether a person was being shunned due to "disfellowshipping" or "disassociation", or on what grounds. Many of these changes were precipitated by events surrounding Raymond Franz, a former governing body member.
Critics state that fear of being shunned and family break-up causes people who might otherwise freely leave the religion to stay.[citation needed] The only way to officially leave the religion is to write a letter requesting to be disassociated or to be disfellowshipped, but both entail the same set of prohibitions and penalties.
Critics contend the judicial process involved, due to its private and nearly autonomous nature, contradict the precedent found in the Bible and the organizations' own teachings and can be used in an arbitrary manner if there is consensus among just a few to so use their authority.
SOURCES:
# ^ Watchtower, April 1, 1914:110 "A little while, and the Millennial kingdom will be inaugurated, which will bring restitution to all mankind--restitution to the perfection of mind and body, feature and color, to the grand original standard, which God declared "very good," and which was lost for a time through sin, but which is soon to be restored by the powerful kingdom of the Messiah"
# ^ Zion's Watch Tower, February 15, 1904: 52-53 "No. But... what the Ethiopian cannot do for himself God could readily do for him. The difference between the races of men... have long been arguments against the solidarity of the human family. The doctrine of restitution has also raised the question. How could all men be brought to perfection and which color of skin was the original? The answer is now provided. God can change the Ethiopian's skin in his own due time... Julius Jackson, of New Frankfort, Montana, a negro boy of nine years, began to grow white in September, 1901, and is now fully nine-tenths white. He assures us that this is no whitish skin disease; but that the new white skin is as healthy as that of any white boy, and that the changed boy has never been sick and never has taken medicines"
# ^ Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1902:216 "...that Ham's characteristics which had led him to unseemly conduct ... would be ... inherited by his son,--and prophetically he foretold that this degeneracy would mark the posterity of Canaan, degrading him, making him servile. We are not able to determine to a certainty that the sons of Ham and Canaan are negroes; but we consider that general view as probable as any other"
# ^ Zion's Watch Tower, July 15, 1902:215-216 "
# ^ Zion's Watch Tower of April 15, 1900 (122)"although we have received letters from several of these, who had intended engaging in the volunteer work, expressing surprise that in the call for volunteers in the March 1, 1900 issue we restricted the inquiry to white Protestant churches. They rightly realized that we have not the slightest of race prejudice, and that we love the colored brethren with just the same warmth of heart that we love the white, and they queried therefore why such a distinction should be made in the call. The reason is colored people have less education than whites--many of them quite insufficient to permit them to profit by such reading as we have to give forth. Our conclusion therefore is based upon the supposition that reading matter distributed to a colored congregation would more than half of it be utterly wasted, and a very small percentage indeed likely to yield good results"
# ^ Penton, 1985:286
# ^ Watchtower, April 1,1914:110 "Recognizing that it meant either the success or the failure of the...[Photo] Drama as respects the whites, we have been compelled to assign the colored friends to the gallery... Some were offended at this arrangement. We have received numerous letters from the colored friends, some claiming that it is not right to make a difference, others indignantly and bitterly denouncing [us] as enemies of the colored people. Some ... told us that they believe it would be duty to stand up for equal rights and always to help the oppressed.... We again suggested that if a suitable place could be found in which the Drama could be presented for the benefit of the colored people alone, we would be glad to make such arrangements, or to cooperate with any others in doing so"
# ^ The Watchtower, Feb. 1, 1952: 95 "our colored brothers have a great cause for rejoicing. Their race is meek and teachable, and from it comes a high percentage of the theocratic increase"
# ^ The Golden Age, July 24, 1929: 702 "...the curse which Noah pronounced upon Canaan was the origin of the black race. Certain it is that when Noah said, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren," he pictured the future of the Colored race. They have been and are a race of servants, but now in the dawn of the twentieth century, we are all coming to see this matter of service in its true light and to find that the only real joy in life is in serving others; not bossing them. There is no servant in the world as good as a good Colored servant, and the joy that he gets from rendering faithful service is one of the purest joys there is in the world"
# ^ January 15, 1973, Watchtower, p. 37. See also Cole 1953
# ^ Cohn, 1956:8
# ^ e.g., Watters, Randall (2004) Thus Saith Jehovah's Witnesses, Common Sense Publications; Gruss, Edmond (2001) Jehovah's Witnesses: Their Claims, Doctrinal Changes, and Prophetic Speculation. What Does the Record Show?, Xulon Press; Reed, David A. (1990) Index of Watchtower Errors, 1879 to 1989, Baker Books
# ^ e.g., The Watchtower Information Service; Quotes-Watchtower.co.uk; Reexamine.Quotes. See also [4]
# ^ See this page for a more complete listing
# ^ Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 7, 1917, p. 485.
# ^ Watchtower, May 15, 1922; Sep. 1, 1922; Apr. 1, 1923; Millions Now Living Will Never Die, 1925, p. 110
# ^ Face the Facts, 1938, pp. 46-50
# ^ Watchtower, Sep. 15, 1941, p. 288
# ^ Watchtower, May 1, 1942, p. 139
# ^ Awake!, May 22, 1969, p. 15
# ^ The Approaching Peace of a Thousand Years (1969) (Watchtower publication) Available online; see also [5]
# ^ See, for example, Awake!, Oct. 8, 1966, pp. 19-20; Watchtower, Oct. 15, 1966, pp. 628-631; May 1, 1967 p. 262; May 1, 1968, p. 271; Aug. 15, 1968, p. 494; Oct. 15, 1974, p. 635; May 1, 1975, p. 285. See this page (starting about half-way down the page, beginning with "How Much Longer Will It Be?") for full quotes.
# ^ Watchtower, Mar 1, 1984, pp. 18-19
# ^ United...worship book
# ^ The Watchtower, August 15, 1996
# ^ Waldeck, Val Jehovah's Witnesses: What do they believe?. Pilgrim Publications SA. ISBN 1-920092-08-0; Buttrey, John M (2004). Let No One Mislead You. iUniverse. ISBN 0-595-30710-8; see also some of the books referenced at the start of this section, and the end of the article.
# ^ "This "prophet" was not one man, but was a body of men and women? Today they are known as Jehovah's Christian witnesses? Of course, it is easy to say that this group acts as a "prophet" of God. It is another to prove it. The only way that this can be done is to review the record. What does it show?" The Watchtower, 'They Shall Know that a Prophet Was Among Them', Apr. 1, 1972, p.197
# ^ "Whom has God actually used as his prophet?... Jehovah's witnesses are deeply grateful today that the plain facts show that God has been pleased to use them. ... It has been because Jehovah thrust out his hand of power and touched their lips and put his words in their mouths..." The Watchtower, Jan. 15, 1959, pp.39-41
# ^ From Awake! Magazine: True, there have been those in times past who predicted an 'end to the world,' even announcing a specific date. Some have gathered groups of people with them and fled to the hills or withdrawn into their houses waiting for the end. Yet, nothing happened. The 'end' did not come. They were guilty of false prophesying. Why? What was missing? Missing was the full measure of evidence required in fulfillment of Bible prophecy. missing from such people were God's truths and the evidence that he was guiding and using them. (Awake!, Oct. 8, 1968, p. 23, emphasis added)
# ^ Zion's Watch Tower and Herald of Christ's Presence January 1908 "Views From the Watchtower"
# ^ The Watchtower Jan. 1883, p. 425
# ^ Watchtower, May 15, 1976, p. 297; Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1985, p. 136
# ^ Awake! Mar. 22, 1993, pp. 3-4
# ^ The Watchtower, 15 January, 1892, page 1355
# ^ The Watchtower, 1 January, 1924, p 5
# ^ The Watchtower, 15 January, 1993, page 5
# ^ The Watchtower, 15 July, 1894, page 1677
# ^ Watchtower, Sep. 1, 1954, p. 529; Oct. 1, 1967, p. 587; Dec. 1, 1981, p.27; Feb 15, 1981, p.19
# ^ Ephesians 4:13 The Watchtower, Aug 1, 2001 p. 13
# ^ Watchtower, Aug. 1, 2001
# ^ Qualified, 1955, p. 156
# ^ e.g., 1902: The Book of Ruth is not prophetic. (Watchtower Reprints IV, p. 3110, Nov 15, 1902); 1932: The Book of Ruth is prophetic. (Preservation, 1932, pp. 169, 175, 176)
# ^ e.g., 1917: Apollyon is Satan (Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. 7, 1917) 1969: Apollyon is Jesus (Then Is Finished the Mystery of God, p. 232)
# ^ See this page
# ^ See this page
# ^ See this site
# ^ See this site
# ^ Watchtower, Apr. 1, 1919; also Watchtower, May 15, 1933, pp. 154-155; Jul. 15, 1960, pp. 438-439; Our Kingdom Ministry, Sep. 2002, p. 8
# ^ Watchtower, Nov. 1, 1956, p. 666; Watchtower, Jun. 1, 1955, p. 333
# ^ Watchtower, Jul. 1, 1973, p. 402
# ^ Awake! 1993 3/22 p. 4 "Why So Many False Alarms?"
# ^ CESNUR
# ^ Worship the Only True God chap. 5 p . 43 par. 4 Freedom Enjoyed by Worshipers of Jehovah
Things like these happen at times with imperfect people. A similar attack was brought on in the last thread. Refer there for a response.
The silliness of scientists who think monkeys are our parents trump anything Jehovah's witnesses have misinterpreted.
lol.
Wow you're naive.