Originally posted by JS357Yes, seriously.
It was a step forward in labor law. (Seriously.)
Just as "an eye for an eye" was a step forward in penal law, as it actually called for restraint in an era of escalating blood feuds.
An eye for an eye stopped an death for an eye, so yes that too was
for escalating blood feuds, it drew a line where they had to stop.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonshipI agree man's first full day was a day of rest, it also set a pattern for timeWhy do you assume God needed to rest?
The pattern that was put forth was for our sake that we get a day of rest
instead being worked 7 days a week every week.
I didn't use the word "needed". This may be a fine point of whether God needed to rest or didn't need to rest. Remember how the Apostle Paul said in Romans that he spoke in hu ...[text shortened]... of rest. Am I right ?
So you might say that man's first full day started as a day of rest.
marking too.
Kelly
3 edits
-Removed-I don't work for you. If you want to find out if they were being unethical or broke any law then look it up for yourself. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it never ceases to amaze me how atheists will leave their brains at the doorstep before going in to argue with Christians. You are essentially telling a Jehovahs Witness that it's unethical for a Johovahs Witness to use material provided by the Jehovahs Witnesses for discussing what the Jehovahs Witnesses believe. 😕
Do you really think you can frighten a Jehovahs Witness with the implied threat of a lawsuit, and get him to believe a Jehovahs Witness might sue another Jehovahs Witness for using material provided by the Jehovahs Witnesses for promoting the Jehovahs Witnesses? Even if some small infraction occurred here who do you think would be stupid enough to try doing anything about it?
You would have better luck at intimidating small children or mentally disabled adults, but I wouldn't recommend you doing that. Here you can at least try without getting into any real trouble.
Have a nice day. 😛
Originally posted by lemon limeToo bad he's not an atheist.
I don't work for you. If you want to find out if they were being unethical or broke any law then look it up for yourself. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it never ceases to amaze me how atheists will leave their brains at the doorstep before going in to argue with Christians. You are essentially telling a Jehovahs Witness that it's unethical for a J ...[text shortened]... ng that. Here you can at least try without getting into any real trouble.
Have a nice day. 😛
Originally posted by JS357I agree with you about an organization that would push its followers or
Moveover, for some people, not stating that it is quoted from a stated source, stifles consideration of the ideas presented. People get sidetracked on the question of plagiarism. I think the JW's here should consider this.
members to spew their "approved thoughts on any topic" instead of letting
its followers come up with their own thoughts on any topic. I've been very
blessed lately joining a couple prayer groups from different areas and I love
that those different groups have the same views even on topics like grace
and love even though they have nothing to do with one another. All of these
people have come up with this all on their own. Some of these people are
from different countries, and I know them though my job while another
group through the church we joined.
If an organization pushes its people to spew just the groups ideas is wrong
and dishonest for several reasons, there really isn't a fair exchange of
ideas. For the one pasting someone else' work, have not come up with their
own thoughts, if they post a reply that belongs to someone else could also
mean they are just spewing out another's work and have not taken the
time to really grapple with coming up with their own thoughts on a topic,
which cheats them and the people they are talking too.
They will never understand anything if they refuse to think about a
topic on their own, where instead they simply spew out the thoughts of
another. They are no different than a computer programmed to write
or say something upon hearing or seeing key words, they are brain dead
and trapped in a organization that promotes anything but free thought.
Kelly