would that change your view on the account???
that's.
plausible.. .
If the parrot was part of the episode would that mean that parrots would lose their wings? Didn't the snake lose his/her legs in this transaction that changed human history?
In New Zealand there is a parrot which has lost the ability to fly, called the Kakapo. Maybe that's the parrot that got us in this mess!
would that change your view on the account???
that's.
plausible.. .
African or European parrot?
" dinosaurs" .
i mean why didn't the bible cover it?.
.
The way I heard it, if I can remember right, is that The creation days are figurative so the earth is billions of years old and the dinosaurs were part of Gods plan for preparing the earth for human habitation. Kind of living JCB's and diggers working away all those years ago...
this is my first post on here so bear with me.
currently i am still an active jw with serious questions about the jw org.
i was hesitant signing up but really need as much input from the people on this forum to get a clear understanding on things.
I think that the words have a violent nature to them. They're not always spoken forcefully in anger, but they are designed for it and carry that feeling with them. You won't hear any five-syllable swears -- these words are short and to the point, meant to be spat out. I tend to flinch when I hear swear words, so I can understand how JWIQ feels.
I agree they are short, sharp words that intensify a sentence. I disagree that this is what they were designed for or that they have a violent nature (although I'm not sure how a word can have a violent nature...). Originally these words were normal words that were a normal part of our language. The classic example is the many roads in the UK which are named GropeC* lane (or were, they have almost all been changed now). This word was on our roadsigns! I completely understand the flinching though, I appreciate that things are different today. The question I'm asking is why these words. There thousands of short sharp words that can be viciously spat. Why do we pick on these? (my theoretical answer: because of the Normans!).
This is a bit ironic since I do swear in private, but the difference is that I am expressing my anger while others are not around. Having someone else say them to me is a bit like being swatted in the face because of the power of the words. I think it's better for relations with other people if we moderate our expressions when talking to them instead of going full-bore, and most people do indeed moderate their emotion when interacting with others, including toning down their speech.
This may just be a bloke thing, but I've noticed that the closer knit the group is, the more they hurl abuse at each other. :) It's not to upset the other person, the swearing actually intenstifies the group bond. It says "look, I can say these taboo words to you and it's ok!". It's also pretty much the only way straight men have of saying "I love you man."
At the very least, even when the swear words are not making me flinch, they at least tell me I am dealing with someone of a lower social standing. Strangers simply don't use words like that with each other where I come from. Among friends, of course, we speak in a way that we know they're comfortable with, and some groups of friends think that swearing is no big deal.
... and we're back to the Normans again! Sitting in their castles and despising the lowly Anglo Saxon peasants working in the fields. Here's another example of how our language is keeping the tyrannical boot on the common mans neck. when it's on a plate (in the castle) it's called Beef which is a French word (Norman). When it's alive in a muddy field it's called Cattle which is an Anglo Saxon word. It's the same for Pork (Swine) and Mutton(Sheep). Our whole language is one of social tyranny! (it's not really, I've gone too far).
Anyway, arguing over the denotations of the words is not useful because we these words have been given a taboo nature. We can't be expected to throw away centuries of cultural conditioning and use them like any other words. It's a faulty argument which pretends that words don't have connotations, and it's a line of thinking that no one follows when actually choosing their words carefully during a conversation so as to avoid giving offense.
Why can't we throw away centuries of cultural conditioning? That's what the Suffragettes did! Instead of burning our bra's let us burn our dictionaries!!
(I've definitely gone too far now!!)
this is my first post on here so bear with me.
currently i am still an active jw with serious questions about the jw org.
i was hesitant signing up but really need as much input from the people on this forum to get a clear understanding on things.
This is my first post on here so bear with me. Currently I am still an active JW with serious questions about the JW org. I was hesitant signing up but really need as much input from the people on this forum to get a clear understanding on things. I would appreciate the replies to this topic be made without cursing or sarcastic comments.
<snip>
It is just when I see many (not all) posters and ex JW’s curse, I wonder is this how I am going to end up like after I leave.
Ok JWIQ, I have something else I'd like to address, to get away from the whole gay topic.
You seem to be very concerned about cursing. You don't want people responding to your post to curse and your worry that you'll start cursing if you leave the JWs. Have you considered why you feel so strongly about cursing?
I'm assuming that when you say cursing you don't mean the old style "May your houses burn and your cattle die horribly" curse, but rather swearing; Using "bad" words.
Have you considered why bad words are bad? I don't mean because of the way they show laziness of thought, a carelessness in speaking, but why those specific words are bad.
If you take the big 3. To protect your eyes I'll call them F, C and S. One describes a perfectly normal activity, one describes a perfectly normal body part and one is a byproduct of eating. Why is that bad? In fact there are plenty of words which describe exactly the same things: Intercourse, Vjajay, Poo, which are perfectly fine. Why?
I have a theory... :)
You see all of the "bad" words are Anglo-Saxon in origin. in 1066 the Normans invaded England and stamped their tyrannical boots over everything, including the language. Anglo-Saxon became synonymous with low-born, common peasant behaviour.
My theory is that this modern day attitude towards these words is related directly to that tyrannical invasion almost 1,000 years ago and, furthermore, any true son of England should use these words with pride! :)
What do you think?
as a father, made in god's love, that has troubled me for a very long time, is that god, as described by the wts, is soon, going to slaughter every, roughly, 7.9 billion people on the planet, because they have figured out a way to come know him as a father according to the wts.. .
as a father, dear apologist, why would you kill/murder a one-day old baby?.
.
This is because at the time the bible was written children (and women) were seen as chattels, possessions. Expendable assets if you like.
That's why Job loses his livestock, possessions and his children.
That's why it's ok for a husband to take his newlywed wife, if she hasn't shown proof of virginity, and have her publicly stoned to death.
Thank goodness that in this day and age our morality and sensibilities have developed way beyond that vicious bronze age book.
seeing various/changing laws on the same action, some may feel truth is relative, and there is no such thing as right and wrong.. yet a closer look at beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone knows what is right and wrong.. driving in the night by putting the head-light off is wrong, but right when country is in war with another country.
behind both the conflicting laws, the truth is same: safety and welfare of the people.
this is true of notion about what is right and wrong:.
Yet a closer look beneath the details would show that truth is not relative, and everyone KNOWS what is right and wrong.
You can't squidge these two statements together even if you do try to join them with a comma and an and!
1) Truth is absolute.
2) Nobody knows what everyone knows.
3) Right and wrong are subjective.
this is my first post on here so bear with me.
currently i am still an active jw with serious questions about the jw org.
i was hesitant signing up but really need as much input from the people on this forum to get a clear understanding on things.
JWINQUESTION, There's a whole massive, complex, fun world out there. Why are you so hung up on the gay question?
Is it your sexuality rather than your religion which is really in question?
I don't mean that as an insult, I just don't understand all this kerfuffle over something which shouldn't affect you at all.
according to plato, the universe thrives on its own, dies and gets rebornall on its own and within itself.
the wise symbolized this concept in ouroboros, a serpent eating its own tail.
[even more wonderful is the marvel called a fruit-bearing treeit does not even eat its own fruit, but simply subsists on mostly what we may consider as dirt/refuse; and trees collectively perform yet another marvel of photosynthesis that make use of our wastes and give us oxygen, food, water, shelter, fiber..........................................[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/opinion/to-save-the-planet-dont-plant-trees.html?_r=0].
I know, and I will never stop pointing that out so long as people are using belief and faith to tell me how to live.
I salute you!
i am having a discussion at work with the jw's.
should you spank a child to make them understand or do you reason with them.
they both agree with spanking.
I just don't know what I'd do if I had children. I can only offer my personal experience which is that I was spanked, thrashed even, as a child but that didn't teach me to solve problems with violence. I'm a non-violent (fairly) well-adjusted adult now. Would I be the same if I had never been spanked? I just don't know!
