Jump to content

admin

What'll you have?

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

admin -
James Thomas Rook Jr. -
2
46

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

The bartender asks the guy sitting at the bar, "What'll you have?"

The guy answers, "A scotch, please."

The bartender hands him the drink, and says, "That'll be five dollars," to which the guy replies, "What are you talking about? I don't owe you anything for this."

A lawyer, sitting nearby and overhearing the conversation, then says to the bartender, "You know, he's got you there. In the original offer, which constitutes a binding contract upon acceptance, there was no stipulation of remuneration."

The bartender was not impressed, but says to the guy, "Okay, you beat me for a drink. But don't ever let me catch you in here again."

The next day, same guy walks into the bar. Bartender says, "What the heck are you doing in here? I can't believe you've got the audacity to come back!"

The guy says, "What are you talking about? I've never been in this place in my life!"

The bartender replies, "I'm very sorry, but this is uncanny. You must have a double."

To which the guy replies, "Thank you. Make it a scotch." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.... Skeleton walks into a bar, and orders a beer and a mop.

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

Abraham Lincoln walks into a bar, takes off his  large hat, and orders a beer.

There is a frog on his head.

Astonished bartender asks "How long have you had THAT?"

Frog answers "It started out as a wart on my butt."

...........................................................................

Midget walks into a bar ....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By admin
      What, you ask, is "Butt dust?" Read on and you'll discover the joy in
      it!  These have to be original and genuine. No adult is this creative!!

      JACK (age 3) was watching his Mom breast-feeding his new baby sister.
      After a while he asked: "Mom why have you got two? Is one for hot and
      one for cold milk?"

      MELANIE (age 5) asked her Granny how old she was. Granny replied she
      was so old she didn't remember any more. Melanie said, "If you don't
      remember you must look in the back of your panties. Mine say five to
      six ."

      STEVEN (age 3) hugged and kissed his Mom good night. "I love you so
      much that when you die I'm going to bury you outside my bedroom window."


      BRITTANY (age 4) had an earache and wanted a pain killer. She tried
      in vain to take the lid off the bottle. Seeing her frustration, her Mom
      explained it was a child-proof cap and she'd have to open it for her.
      Eyes wide with wonder, the little girl asked: "How does it know it's
      me?"

      SUSAN (age 4) was drinking juice when she got the hiccups. "Please
      don't give me this juice again," she said, "It makes my teeth cough."

      DJ (age 4) stepped onto the bathroom scale and asked: "How much do I
      cost?"

      MARC (age 4) was engrossed in a young couple that were hugging and
      kissing in a restaurant. Without taking his eyes off them, he asked his
      dad: "Why is he whispering in her mouth?"

      CLINTON (age 5) was in his bedroom looking worried. When his Mom
      asked what was troubling him, he replied, "I don't know what'll happen
      with this bed when I get married. How will my wife fit in?"

      JAMES (age 4) was listening to a Bible story. His dad read: "The man
      named Lot was warned to take his wife and flee out of the city but his
      wife looked back and was turned to salt." Concerned, James
      asked: "What happened to the flea?"

      TAMMY (age 4) was with her mother when they met an elderly, rather
      wrinkled woman her Mom knew. Tammy looked at her for a while and then
      asked, "Why doesn't your skin fit your face?"

      The Sermon I think this Mom will never forget.... this particular
      Sunday sermon..."Dear Lord," the minister began, with arms extended
      toward heaven and a rapturous look on his upturned face. "Without you, we
      are but dust..." He would have continued but at that moment my very
      obedient daughter who was listening leaned over to me and asked quite audibly
      in her shrill little four year old girl voice, "Mom, what is butt dust?"
    • By admin
      Jim was annoyed when his blonde wife told him that a car had backed into
      her, damaging a fender, and that she hadn't gotten the license number.
      "What kind of car was he driving?" he asked. 

      "I don't know," she said. "I never can tell one car from another." 

      At that, Jim decided the time had come for a learning course, and for
      the next few days, whenever they were driving, he made her name each car
      they passed until he was satisfied that she could recognize every make.


      It worked. About a week later she bounded in with a pleased expression
      on her face. "Darling," she said. "I hit a Buick!"
    • By admin
      A woman's husband had been slipping in and out of a coma for several months, yet she had stayed by his bedside every single day.

      One day, when he came to, he motioned for her to come nearer.




      As she sat by him, he whispered, eyes full of tears, 'You know what?  'You have been with me all through the bad times.  When I got fired, you were there to support me.  When my business failed, you were there.  When I got shot, you were by my side.

      When we lost the house, you stayed right here.  When my health started failing, you were still by my side... You know what Martha?'

      'What dear?' she gently asked, smiling as her heart began to fill with warmth.

      'I'm beginning to think you're bad luck...
    • By admin
      A little girl was talking to her teacher about whales. The teacher said it was physically impossible for a whale to swallow a human because even though it was a very large mammal its throat was very small.

      The little girl stated that Jonah was swallowed by a whale.

      Irritated, the teacher reiterated that a whale could not swallow a human; it was physically impossible.

      The little girl said, "When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah."

      The teacher asked, "What if Jonah went to hell?"

      The little girl replied, "Then you ask him."
  • Forum Statistics

    61,680
    Total Topics
    114,509
    Total Posts
  • Member Statistics

    16,507
    Total Members
    1,592
    Most Online
    AliciaBarbosa
    Newest Member
    AliciaBarbosa
    Joined




  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.