you therefore, son of man, prophesy, and strike your hands together.
the third time let the sword do double damage.
it is the sword that slays, the sword that slays the great men, that enters their private chambers.
we ain't done
for some reason this reminded me of the simpsons where they are trying to go to Branson Missouri but accidently go to Bronson. all the Bronsonites look and talk like Charles bronson and this little kid says to his mom, "Hey ma, how bout a cookie?" ans she says, "No dice." so he says, "dis ain't ovah." so, see? turned out reading this thread wasn't a total waste of time after all!
firstly let me say that i am not trying to offend believers - i was one for most of my life.
nor is this a discussion about whether god/religion is a 'good' or 'bad' thing, that argument will rage forever.
what i'm asking is really a simple question;.
Q:
i found this quote from eminent evolutionist and VERY vocal atheist, Richard Dawkins that seems to have something to do with this subject:
i'm sure with just a small amount of effort it would be easy to show that "survival of the fittest" is hardly an acceptable (or accepted) 'lifestyle' even in the atheistic community."What is the purpose of life?" already has a straightforward Darwinian answer and is quite different from "What would be a worthwhile purpose for me to adopt in my own life?" Indeed, my own philosophy of life begins with an explicit rejection of Darwinism as a normative principle for living, even while I extol it as the explanatory principle for life.
This brings me to the aspect of humanism that resonates most harmoniously for me. We are on our own in the universe. Humanity can expect no help from outside, so our help, such as it is, must come from our own resources. As individuals we should make the most of the short time we have, for it is a privilege to be here. We should seize the opportunity presented by our good fortune and fill our brief minds, before we die, with understanding of why, and where, we exist. http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Interviews/1997-winterhumanist.shtml
firstly let me say that i am not trying to offend believers - i was one for most of my life.
nor is this a discussion about whether god/religion is a 'good' or 'bad' thing, that argument will rage forever.
what i'm asking is really a simple question;.
Q:
If you want a factual essay with neat explanatory refs at the bottom of every comment I make you can wait all day mates.
yes please...oh, i see. nevermind...
i understand that you were attempting to facetiously carry an evolutionist's beliefs to "their logical ends", and not actually spouting your own personal worldview, however, i am fairly certain you will be hard pressed to find a single evolutionist that subscribes to your sensationalised "logical end" as described in your above posts. your argument is a strawman that doesn't apply to ANYONE and therefore is hardly useful.
"long time lurker, first time poster".
thought everybody would enjoy this snippet of an e-mail, from a friend of a friend who is in the current gilead class:.
"...brother liverance gave a fascinating talk on bible chronology.
Praise be to Jah!!!
modern science will be so glad to hear that the God of Economy has brought to light the fact that decades and decades of painstaking archaelogical/biological observation is all completely wrong. they've been barking up the wrong tree with all of their "facts" and "fossils" and whatnot. the answer was written clear as day by goat herders millenia ago!!! stupid us!
"Operation Rescue" - Bad Religion
the whole Against the Grain album is super good.
life ever-after is what they're in the
business for, see them brandish the key to their kingdoms door, it's
persuasive, it's a part of you and me but it's not overwhelming as
they wish it to be, if no one believed in fairy tales there would be
nothing they could do but fail yet everywhere we look someone is
trying to reassure our moral benevolence as a poeple, operation
rescue..., you may wonder where they come from, but i just wonder what
compels them all
firstly let me say that i am not trying to offend believers - i was one for most of my life.
nor is this a discussion about whether god/religion is a 'good' or 'bad' thing, that argument will rage forever.
what i'm asking is really a simple question;.
Q:
i'm sorry, but i thought i should point out that your own faith-based love and altruism is shining through all too clearly.
these are some of the most closed-minded, prejudiced and offensive comments i've heard in awhile. if this is the attitude that follows faith, then i think i'll pass.
jesus loves you...you brought the beer.
if god's original plan was to have just one husband and wife and not many wives or concubines, why did he "allow" it?
this never made any sense to me.
solomon was "allowed" to have innumerable women.
I guess David and Jonathan were hot for each other
his love was sweeter than a woman...
if god's original plan was to have just one husband and wife and not many wives or concubines, why did he "allow" it?
this never made any sense to me.
solomon was "allowed" to have innumerable women.
Doogie, I never heard of the kneeling down thing but very interesting.
yeah, try reading any of those scriptures now without a completely different visual... i think i read it in Joseph Wheless, Is It God's Word.
if god's original plan was to have just one husband and wife and not many wives or concubines, why did he "allow" it?
this never made any sense to me.
solomon was "allowed" to have innumerable women.
i think that whatever is acceptable at the time is what's acceptable to jehovah.
even 150 years ago it was not "proper" to be seen walking alone with someone of the opposite sex that was not your spouse (this would've no doubt been a reprovable offense had the JWs been around in their current form back then) and married people often (usually?) slept in seperate bedrooms (or at least seperate beds). nowadays, its ok to walk around with someone of the opposite sex but many feel its immoral to have casual sex with many anonymous partners. who knows, maybe in a couble of years, oral sex will be the new handshake... i read somewhere that in psalms and kings (solomon and david), when it says that someone "knelt down and did an act of obiesence" (sp?) to the king, this may have had...ahem...references to phallic worship. apparently that was acceptable to jehovah as well (if true, of course).
apparently many things were appropriate back then that are not now. jehovah appears to be a pretty hip fella. he keeps in step with the times.
