dorayakii

Joined

• started 46 topics
• posted 631 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by dorayakii

• 
  18

  The Goof with the Troof (in the spirit of the Cat in the Hat)

  by AlmostAtheist in

  1. social
  2. humour

  i read "cat in the hat" to zach tonight and became inspired.

  you be the judge if it was "inpsired of demons", "inpsired of god", or just gas.

  the sun did not shine.. it was a miserable day.. life seemed so empty.. just so cold and so gray.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  Pure genius
• 
  40

  My God, this is outragous - HP Sauce to be made in Netherlands, not Britain

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  hp sauce is the sauce to have with a fry-up at breakfast.

  not like that horrible american ketchup nonsense.

  http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/05/10/hp-british.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  We don't need manufacturing to support the economy, we can all work in call centres, selling each other stuff we can buy with our credit cards. ; That is all we need to have a healthy economy, isn't it?

  Even the call centres are being moved abroad, especially to places like India. Have you called up one recently? You used to be greated with a friendly Glaswegian, now you're greated with a friendly Indian... who is actually *IN* India!!
• 
  21

  You might be an Islmamist if......

  by Shining One in

  1. social
  2. current

  .....you go wacky and kill people because of some offending cartoons in a newspaper!

  ah, just like abaddon and other libiots like to say, "it's just the culture, not the religion that's evil.

  " why don't they say that about the cult they came out of (jws)?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  America is the most 'Christianist' country and this nation has the most freedom that any government as ever allowed. Hmmm, go figure!

  
  Well, the level of Christianity that a government has, is in no way directly related to the amount of freedoms that it allows...

  About 100-200 years ago, before the United States began to smother the Earth, Great Britain was the most 'Christianist' country, with Queen Victoria whose title included "Empress of India" and "Defender of the Faith". Yet, although being a Christian nation, Great Britian spread its Empire, annihilating indigenous cultures, languages and peoples. Eventually admittedly leading to civilisation in some areas, but mostly leaving in its wake, broken nation-states such as India/Pakistan and most of war-torn, sub-Saharan Africa which are still trouble-spots to this day.

  About 500 years ago, Spain was the most 'Christianist' country. Yet it travelled to the "New World" and murdered countless indiginous people, sometimes wiping out the whole population in a few years (eg. the original inhabitants of the Island of Xamaca, aka modern Jamaica). So don't you even dare come to me and say Christianity is an historicaly peaceful religion.

  The real reason why America has allowed much freedom is quite the opposite from your claims of Christian influence. It has allowed more freedoms simply because it was based on *not* being so dogmatic about religion. It allowed people to choose what religion they wanted, if any... and this withdrawal from fundamentalism allowed people to embrace research, science and progress.

  The freedoms gained by the French Revolution (although imperfect, but much better than the situation under the Catholic Church and the Monarchy of the "Kingdom of France") were also gained through a shedding of suffocating religious dictates and an embracing of religion as a mere cultural addition to society. This is the real reason Islam appears to be a dangerous religion, because the vast majority of its countries have not demoted Islam from an institution which runs the government to merely a precious, historical and cultural heritage. In my humble opinion, i can see a lot of existing problems resolved if the transition is run to its completion in the Western world.

  I do believe that the roots of much Western morality is found in Chritianity, *but* in view of the fact that much was also taken from Greek and Roman paganism, it does not make Chritianity any more superior than any other religion. Religion was the vehicle of civilisation, not its driving force. Circumstances and political climate could just have easily made Islam the religion of civilisation, and Christianity a barbaric suicide bombers cult.

  Violence is not necessarily an intrinsic part of any religion, otherwise you could claim that violence is intrinsic to Christiantiy which has indeed "gone wacky and killed people". It burned, murdered and arrested astronomers and scientists for publishing theses on why the Earth was round, or revolved around the sun, and during a more civilised age, merely slandered their findings on biology and evolution etc... Eventually though, the determination of European scientists, (some with and some without Christian beliefs) managed to break through this religiosity to bring about industry and technology. Many honestly believed they were making our world a better place, the nationalistic and religious governments used (and continue to use) that technology for their own gain.

  What i also find strange is your rejection of the Old Testament, well, your New Testament god is the same as the Old Testament god is he not? Or did he just come into existance in the first century AD? How do you explain his personality change from a god who instructs people to rip foetuses out of pregnat pagan women, to a god of peace and love who saved us?

  Don't whine to me about the middle ages, Old Testament or anything else about Chrsitianity.

  Well i'm afraid i have to whine, because all these thing did take place if history is to be believed. All you seem to accept are the peaceful parts of Christian history: the early Church, when there was only a handful of peaceful followers, and the modern world, where the once great and powerful Church has little influence over world affairs. Everything inbetween that, and before that, you reject. You ignore Christianity's violent history, yet you attack the violence in Islam... and you do it when there are no Muslims here to defend their faith.

  Listen to history, and do not reject "the middle ages, Old Testament or anything else about Chrsitianity" just because it does not fit into your world-view. The world is not black-and-white, so I'm not saying that faith and religion is always evil in every circumstance, no. What I am saying is that religion, like science, can sometimes be dangerous, and sometimes healing... but when it is dangerous, its bloody dangerous, and there is no difference between the potential dangerosity of Christianity and that of Islam.
• 
  75

  Atheists Worst Nightmare!

  by SickofLies in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  i don't know how i ever doubted that intelligent design was correct!

  after watching a video involving kirk cameron, i now see the error of my ways, and will be tithing 50% of my income to the church every month out of contrition.. .

  you want to know the mighty argument that changed my views, and my life, forever?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  "When I look at a building, how can I know there was a build-ERR? Can't see him, hear him, touch him, taste him or smell him, so how can i know there was a build-ERR?... Well the building is absolute proof there was a build-ERR. I couldn't want better proof there was a build-ERR"

  "When I look at a painting, how can I know there was a paint-ERR? Can't see him, hear him, touch him, taste him or smell him, so how can i know there was a paint-ERR?... Well the painting is absolute proof there was a paint-ERR. I couldn't want better proof there was a paint-ERR"

  BWAHAHAHA his accent is funny....

  but seriously now, although i lean more towards atheisms than agnosticism, i believe that it really is physically and philosophically impossile to prove either that a God does or does not exist, so i try not to get into arguements with creationists. Although i believe the evidence points more toward there not being a God, i believe trying to prove there is not one is an exercise in futility.

  By way of comparison, the complexity of many languages by which we can describe both concrete and abstract concepts appears to have been invented by a council. The Latin case system is a prime example... this seemingly elegant system has been proven to be a result of the decay of auxilairies, which themselves are the decay of abstract verbs, which themselves are the decay of concrete verbs. All language, with its thousands of word-categories, phonological systems and varieties, is likely a decay of concrete nouns, verbs and the two cardinal demonstratives (this, that). This is a pattern seen even in recorded language history, which is projected into pre-historical times and is able to expalin how language cold even have evolved from a series of grunts, (as long as those grunts were distinctly unique and at one point corresponded to a handful of concrete objects and simple actions). So an outward appearance of complexity does not necessarily dictate the presence of a creator. In language, the evidence points toward chaos and disorder *creating* order in a condenced, rich and convenient form (a theory propagated in "The Unfolding of Language" by Guy Deutscher).... The comparison is not 100% relevant, but shows to a certain extent, how complexity can arise from simplicity in a medium which we use daily without thinking...

  ...but how do we know that syntax, semantics and pragmatics were not place in our brains by a creator, ie. the Tower of Babel story? Well, we don't. Trying to prove or disprove the Tower of Babel is an exercise in futility... The creator of these proto-languages *could* have invented them and implanted them in the brains or the tower build-ERRS, with the corresponding "proof" that these languages already were spoken before and changed and evolved from a corresponding ancestor, to their contemporary forms, how do we know? The fact is, it very well could have happened that way, but... but I chose to believe that the evidence points toward there not being a creator of language... i believe that the Tower of Babel explanation contains too many ifs and buts and is surrounded by stories of other "unlikely" events (and by "unlikely" i mean not relevant or current to my personal experience)...

  Think of it this way, how do we know that history was not implanted in our brains, and that everything we remember did not happen but was merely emplanted in our brains to make us believe we are part of some glorious civilisation (eg. 1984, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale [Total Recall] The Truman Show, Matrix, Dark City)? The simple truth is that, depending on the potence and benevolence of the hypothetical creator of these scenarios, we cannot be 100% sure... in fact, we cannot even be 1% sure. This makes the arguement for or against a God an exercise in futility... all we can do is gather evidence and come to theory. There is no point in being dogmatic about that theory or trying to convince others of its veracity.

  I agree with creationists that the mere existance of all the viruses, diseases, illnesses that befall us don't necessarily prove that there wasn't a designer (although they lend enormous weight to that hypothesis). However, i don't believe the arguement that we ate a fruit and "fell from grace" is adequate or satifactory to explain away the presence of these problems, especially if one makes grandiose claims of omnipotence, omnibenevolence and omniscience for ones God. Again the "God" explanation to me contains too many ifs and buts and is surrounded by a plethora of stories and fables about snakes and trees that is just not relevant to my daily understanding of the world, it has nothing to do with my personal experience. Therefore i chose not to believe in the "God " theory, i choose to believe that diseases, illness and syndromes result from either imperfect or mutated reproduction, or macro- and micro-organisms being in competition with each other.

  That is all that needs to be proven, going beyond that, for me, is an effort in futility, but i will not argue with a creationist, because their mind is different from mine, the way they see evidence is different, they may have a propensity to believe in a God, just as I have a propensity not to. Once a person is sure, it is unlikely that any amount of "evidence" will pursuade either party to change their view. Even though definately an atheist, i still cannot be dogmatic, or imperious with my beliefs. If the fact that a banana has 5 outer sides and the circle resulting from our index finger and thumb forming a ring has 5 inner sides is enough for some people, fine. If the complexity of the eye or the brain is enough for other people, fine. I'm not against faith or belief, but i am against dogmatism and coersion

  The video is a lot of speclation and belief - that's what evolution is. "Could be this, might be that". Oh, all evolution had to do is stick a lense in there. How'd that happen?

  This demonstrates a key difference between evolutionists and creationists. I think it is a good thing to speculate, instead of stating categorically and dogmatically that something is true. "Could be this, might be that" is intrinsically better than "the Bible says this so that is true".

  It is better to decide what the facts are on evidence, and even when evidence is prsented, to be flexible as to what could have happened. It is harmful to decide what the facts are *before* the evidence is found. Even more harmful to try to manipulate evidence to fit into an ancient book. For many creationists the Bible must be true, whatever the evidence. When new evidence is discovered, it is squeezed to try and fit in with biblical stories. Their beliefs are always so sure and never change... There is a big difference between looking for evidence and formulating a theory based on it, and looking for evidence to try to prove an existing theory.
• 
  26

  Kids referring to older ones as AUNTIE or UNCLE

  by lowden in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i don't know about other patrs of the world but in the uk, youngsters were expected to refer to older ones as auntie or uncle.

  i publicly told my children not to do this, i thought it was reeeeally creepy.

  my main reason for this is that i think it creates trust in people that are strangers to the family unit and for some kids, it's part of the grooming process for molestation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  I never really thought of it as a Brit thing either, it was just so normal to call almost everyone in the cong, "Uncle or Aunty so-and-so".

  As a youth, it's a painful stage to go from calling people in the cong aunty and uncle to their first names, usually it's a phase which has much mumbling and talking behind my hand!

  I found this too... as i got older, one lady told me not to call her "Aunty" anymore, so i stopped calling anyone Uncle or Aunty, and started saying Brother or Sister so-and-so... at which point i got told off by another lady who i'd known for years, for calling her "Sister", she thought it was a little bit cold and distant, and told me to call her "Aunty"...

  Sister can only be used with the surname, whereas "Aunty must be used with the first name, so i got really confused, started for a while calling people things like "Uncle Smith" and "Sister Ruth" which sounded decidedly strange... then I stopped calling anyone anything for a while, until i was able to strike the balance right...

  It often depends on age, but equally as often on the length of time the person has known you. At one point i could call a 30 year old woman who i'd known for a long time "Aunty x" but a 45 year old woman who had just moved into the cong "Sister x"... In the end, i only called the very senior people in the congregation "Brother" or "Sister". I think a certain amount of grey hair warrented such a title.
• 
  33

  Increase of war--staggering statements from the Really Teach book

  by M.J. in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  the "bible teach" book, on p.89 says:millions of people have been killed in wars during the past century.

  one british historian wrote: "the 20th century was the most murderous in recorded history...it was a century of almost unbroken war, with few and brief periods without organised and armed conflict somewhere.

  " a report from the worldwatch institute states: "three times as many people fell victim to war in [the 20th] century as in all the wars from the first century ad to 1899.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  "Three times as many people fell victim to war in [the 20th] century as in all the wars from the first century AD to 1899."

  This statement is meaningless unless it takes into account the total world population. In just 12 years from 1987 to 1999, the world population increased from 5,000 to 6,000 million.

  In 1927 the population had reached 2,000 million, and in 1802 it had just reached 1,000 million. The worlds population has therefore sextupled in only 200 years. In 1750 the worlds population was a mere 791 million.

  Indeed, taking an unanalytical laymans glance at a population graph, it seems like the quantity of people who lived in the 20th century almost equals or probably surpasses the entire population of people who ever lived in the preceding 19 centuries.

  The Watchtower statement is therefore sensationalist, senseless and risible.
• 
  26

  Kids referring to older ones as AUNTIE or UNCLE

  by lowden in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i don't know about other patrs of the world but in the uk, youngsters were expected to refer to older ones as auntie or uncle.

  i publicly told my children not to do this, i thought it was reeeeally creepy.

  my main reason for this is that i think it creates trust in people that are strangers to the family unit and for some kids, it's part of the grooming process for molestation.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  Come to think of it it IS quite creepy. I was always told to call everyone above around 25 Uncle or Aunty so-and-so, it was just normal to me.

  Even a few years after my step-mum married my dad, i still called her Aunty ******, i didn't realise they were so annoyed at it, until a family-meeting was called to analyse my reaction to the whole re-marriage thing.

  There came a time when was too old to call everyone Uncle or Aunty and just started to use their first names, which felt weird. I still refer to some older ones who i knew way back then as "uncle" or "aunty", depending on how old they are, and how long i've known them.

  Don't y'all in the US do that?
• 
  25

  What Bible Characters Fascinated You?

  by MissBehave in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i grew up like alot of you on my book of bible stories with all the beautiful illustrations .

  thinking back the characters that i was most fascinated with were those like jezebel, delilah, queen vashti etc.

  being a young teenage girl, to me they seemed way more interesting.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  I was never endeared to any Bible character to be honest, they were always colourless, emotionless, boring stories to me, even as a child with the Bible Story book. I had absolutely no interest in any Bible characters I thought they were all a bunch of pompous twats.

  Even at a youngish age, i was highly sensitive to the injustices in the Bible. During the family Bible study i experienced a growing but silent indignation at the treatment of people like:

  • Achan who stole a robe and some gold and whose whole family got massacred for it.
  • Isaac who had to go through the terrifying ordeal of carrying wood up a mountain, and then at the last minute bound up by his father believing he was going to be murdered viciously.
  • Lot's wife who merely turned around as was brutally murdered by being turned to salt.
  • Uzzah who was killed on the spot for trying to stabalise the Ark of the Covenant.
• 
  98

  UPDATE

  by RichieRich in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  yesterday afternoon, i recieved 2 text messages from an anonymous source that read :.

  (person that turned you in) i turned you into your brothers for your own good.

  gal ?:?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  The very best of luck whatever happens, you are a 17 yr old who doesn't mess around. You have maturity beyond your years buit still know how to have a good time making *them* run circles around you. I always read you're posts even if i dont comment on all of them. I have the utmost respect for you Richie. Good luck
• 
  43

  New Invitations for the "Deliverance at Hand" DC

  by dorayakii in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  .

  the front of this new watchtower-sized invitation features a common painting of the jw paradise and the theme of his years distirct convention, "deliverance at hand" emblazened across the front.

  it looks like they're trying to work up armageddon fervour again.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  It's always the guy with Dockers, and an L.L.Bean shirt, doing gardening with his ethnic self, smiling, pushing a wheelbarrow around with tons of fresh fruit and vegetables. Like he just can't wait to eat that eggplant meddley again, for the 4 millionth time.

  BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

  Actually the very theme is the reason i say that they're trying to stir up something. No other DC themes have been as direct... Deliverance is at hand!!

  2006 Deliverance At Hand
  2005 Godly Obedience
  2004 Walk with God
  2003 Give God Glory
  2002 Zealous Kingdom Proclaimers
  2001 Teachers of God's Word
  2000 Doers of God's Word
  1999 God's Prophetic Word
  1998 God's Way of Life
  1997 Faith in God's Word
  1996 Messengers of Godly Peace
  1995 Joyful Praisers
  1994 Godly Fear
  1993 Divine Teaching
  1992 Light Bearers
  1991 Lovers of Freedom
  1990 Pure Language
  1989 Godly Devotion
  1988 Divine Justice
  1987 Trust in Jehovah
  1986 Divine Peace
  1985 Integrity Keepers
  1984 Kingdom Increase
  1983 Kingdom Unity
  1982 Kingdom Truth
  1981 Kingdom Loyalty
  1980 Divine Love