Beggar for the Spirit

Full Access Users
  • Content count

    1,274
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

3 Followers

About Beggar for the Spirit

  • Rank
    Platinum Member

Recent Profile Visitors

3,221 profile views
  1. Thanks John and Ruben! Good explanations.
  2. So I finally was able to see the movie, but now I have some questions that I hope all of you can help me with: 1) So at the very, very beginning of the movie, the intro - "In a Galaxy far, far away" and that was it! Nothing more! Was that a film issue in my area or was that on purpose that they gave no story line? Nor the famous musical intro that is normally played along with the scrolling words? That intro is 1 of the most famous parts of Star Wars and it was just cut out! And this caused me much confusion during the movie because I didn't watch any previews, and so I just assumed that Rogue One would follow in sequence to the last movie (The Force Awakens). If they would have given the famous introduction and explained what was happening and where in time the story was at, then I would have understood more about the timing of the movie. Anyone else have that problem? Did everyone know before going to the movie that the story was back before the very first movie in 1977? Probably just me since I didn't watch the previews or read anything prior. 2) Has anyone read about why the writers/producers didn't make this movie in sequence with the "Force Awakens"? For what reason did they decide to go back in time before the very first Star Wars movie? I guess I am just confused as to their choice and I thought that they would have continued in sequence and developed all the new characters from the "Force Awakens"? Any knowledge that will help answer some of my questions and help my confusion I will appreciate, thanks!
  3. Thanks Neil for sharing the perspective of "Philosophy". But I wonder if those in Philosophy that believe that the term"Being" is just for the "Causation/Creator/God, if they are correct? They have been wrong about other ideas/concepts. So are the philosophers correct? Are they the ones who should determine what a "Being" is? If we could ask the Creator what He considers a "Being", would He say that only He himself is a Being? OR Might Jehovah say that anything that He has created that is "living" and has "existence" is a Being? While the Creator is the ultimate Being and "causation", are not other life forms Beings? Such as His own son Jesus. It is hard to imagine Jehovah saying, "No my son Jesus is not a Being" His son also is immortal and self-sustaining, just as 144,000 other sons are. All of this is very intriguing to consider as to what a Being is, since we can't directly ask Jehovah, we as humans might look to science or philosophy, but I am curious as to what Jehovah's view on this matter is? Now some would choose "Creature" instead of a "Being" for anything else living but God. Why though? Why does the act of creating or being the initial cause only make God a Being? If a person accepts that a Being has "existence" and must be "living", thinking, then this would include all sorts of things as Beings, from Angels to humans to even animals. So couldn't Jehovah view something He created as also a "Being"(a living thing that has existence)?
  4. To add to the discussion, notice how the modern dictionaries define "Being". If these definitions were to be the deciding factor in determining what a being is, then a "Being" would include animals or even insects since these breath and exist, a "living thing". Interesting, what are your thoughts? (Merriam-Webster) Definition of being 1a : the quality or state of having existence b (1) : something conceivable as existing (2) : something that actually exists (3) : the totality of existing things c : conscious existence : life 2: the qualities that constitute an existent thing : essence; especially : personality 3: a living thing; especially : person Dictionary.com 1.the fact of existing; existence (as opposed to nonexistence). 2.conscious, mortal existence; life: Our being is as an instantaneous flash of light in the midst of eternalnight. 3.substance or nature: of such a being as to arouse fear. 4.something that exists: inanimate beings. 5.a living thing: strange, exotic beings that live in the depths of the sea. 6.a human being; person: the most beautiful being you could imagine. 7. (initial capital letter) God.
  5. Hi Everyone, Brother Nnaemeka recently asked an interesting question on a topic he started about the term "Human Being". And so I thought that maybe it would be fun if we started a topic that was just about the term "Being". So what is the true meaning of a "Being"? Is a "being"defined by what the secular dictionaries say? Or should the term "being" be defined by science? Or is this term or idea of the term found in the Bible anywhere? And if Jehovah hasn't defined it for us, then how should it be defined? Could it be any living creature that exists on earth or in heaven? Or does a "being" only mean the Creator himself? Or could it include any self-sustaining/immortal creature such as Jesus and the 144,00? Or could a "being" even include robots or an android? Are animals beings? If so, what about an insect? What is the deciding factor or factors for something to truly be defined as a "being"? A fun discussion but this would be just about the term and not about whether a person should use the term as that is what Brother Nnaemeka's topic is mostly about. Or unless Brother Nnaemeka or the Moderators feel that these topics should be merged? Either way, sounds like an interesting discussion. Any thoughts?
  6. Hi Brother Randall, Good thinking and question: "The theory is that eventually stars burn out. They then explode or go Nova. Does this mean that that star is now missing? The matter from the star still exists! Just thinking out loud." You will be glad to know that someone had written in to the Branch from Africa asking a similar question to yours and a good explanation was given to them and then this was printed in 1 of the Awake articles for all of us. But what is also interesting is that the FDS had already given an answer in a Question from Readers years before this, so apparently many intelligent brothers and sisters like you have been asking this similar question about stars and ISA 40:26 for many years. So I copied parts of the articles below for you ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *** g93 2/8 p. 30 From Our Readers *** From Our Readers Universe I must say thank you for the mind-boggling information in the series “Unlocking the Secrets of the Universe.” (March 22, 1992) But by what authority are we saying that red giants, pulsars, and black holes are stages in the life [and death] of stars? Isaiah 40:26 says of stars that “not one of them is missing.” E. W., Sierra Leone This Bible text is not discussing whether stars have a cataclysmic end. Rather, it is highlighting God’s unfathomable knowledge and wisdom. As Creator, God knows the situation of each individual star. None are “missing” as far as he is concerned. (See “The Watchtower” of September 15, 1989, page 31.)—ED. *** w89 9/15 p. 31 Questions From Readers *** Questions From Readers ▪ Scientists hold that some stars burn out or explode, so why does Isaiah 40:26 say that “not one of [the stars] is missing”? Jehovah is not here discussing whether he permits stars to disappear. He is emphasizing the extent of his wisdom and ability. Scientists estimate that there are thousands of millions of stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and there are some one hundred thousand million galaxies. Yet, God knows each star by name, either an individual name or a namelike designation, perhaps in divine language. He is in command of their situation. Like a general able to muster the troops, Jehovah could call the stars to muster. If he did so, none would be “missing.” Knowing the situation of each star, even if some of them do come to a natural end, it is no surprise to the One who knows all that is occurring.—Compare Isaiah 34:16. Astronomers and physicists think that stars burn out or explode. In Red Giants and White Dwarfs, Robert Jastrow theorizes how this might happen: “Within the . . . star a series of nuclear reactions set in, in which all the other elements of the universe were manufactured out of the basic ingredient, hydrogen. Eventually these nuclear reactions died out, and the star’s life came to an end. Deprived of its resources of nuclear energy, it collapsed under its own weight, and in the aftermath of the collapse an explosion occurred, spraying out to space all the materials that had been created within the star during its lifetime.” Supposedly some stars, consuming their hydrogen, change into red giants and then develop into white dwarfs or supernovas, some finally ending up as neutron stars or, theoretically, black holes. Yes, human scientists are very limited as to what they really know and can know. How different it is, though, with the Creator. His knowledge and dynamic energy certainly merit our awe. The psalmist rightfully said: “He is counting the number of the stars; all of them he calls by their names. Our Lord is great and is abundant in power; his understanding is beyond recounting. . . . Praise Jah, you people!”—Psalm 147:4, 5, 20.
  7. I thought that many of you would very much appreciate seeing exact quotes from some of the most renown Theoretical Physicists and Cosmologists in our modern day about the initial condition of the universe. I think these are important because when we are witnessing to atheists, agnostics or anyone interested in how or if science can provide some evidence of intelligent design or a Creator, rather than getting into any kind of debate about whether a "Big Bang" occurred or not, here is 1 thing that all of the top scientists agree on - that the initial condition of the universe was not chaotic or random at all, but the complete opposite. They all agree that there was a high degree of order. How much order? Well their statements express it very clearly. I hope that these quotes and this idea of using the "special" initial condition of the universe to give an excellent witness to others which facts are backed by the scientific community will help any and all who will listen to us. Max Tegmark - Cosmologist and Professor at MIT "Our universe started out in a very unusual orderly state" Brian Greene - Professor and Theoretical Physicist at Columbia University and Author of "Fabric of the Cosmos" "The ultimate source of order, of low entropy, must be the very beginning of the universe" Sylvester James Gates Jr. - Theoretical physicist, Professor at University of Maryland, serves on President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science "The Big Bang is a highly ordered state, it is probably the most ordered event in all of physics" Sir Roger Penrose - Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, 1 of the world's leading mathematical physicists and joint winner of the Wolf prize with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to the understanding of the universe: (speaking about the special initial state of the universe and the low entropy) "...you can actually work this out, it's so special that the odds against the special initial state coming about by chance are less than one part in 10 to the power, 10 to the power (123)... So if you try to write this out 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000(continue)… to put one zero on every particle of the observable universe you’d be way short... I just want to give you some feeling for how special the initial state of the universe was!" "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like 1 part in 10 to the power, 10 to the power (123)."
  8. Thanks Chris! I wasn't too concerned about the safety of the links since a variety of the brothers/sisters were giving these links, I just couldn't quite understand why they were giving these links or downloads from some other site rather than just simply using JW.org? But now thanks to you and Adelin, the clouds of confusion are starting to clear for me, thanks.
  9. Thanks Adelin for that info. So are these links coming from the JW.org website but it just shows "akamaihd.net"? Or did you download this article from "akamaihd.net" ? Sorry, just trying to understand the links.
  10. I think you found it Adelin, good job. That picture is what Sister Dejuana described. Also, I am curious about these links to "akamaihd.net", may I ask what that is? Never heard of it?
  11. Hi Sister Dejuana, Could it be 1 of these articles below? Each article has a man with a tie/suit and it is about honesty. https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/g201502/honesty/#?insight[search_id]=cfa77737-514e-448d-9029-e6ac1d08f9e3&insight[search_result_index]=0 https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/watchtower-no1-2016-january/why-people-lie/#?insight[search_id]=519caf4c-1245-429e-b0b1-3ddeb192d672&insight[search_result_index]=2
  12. Hi neil, how have you been doing? It's long time I did not hear from you. Hope you are fine, the your health is improving also. Most improtant, happy and joyful!

     

    Warm regards from China

  13. I think my devices control me! But in a good way. They control me by taking me to Jehovah's thoughts on JWLibrary or JWorg and good association on JWtalk.