dorayakii

Joined

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

Posts by dorayakii

• 
  34

  Where did England disappear to?

  by dorayakii in

  1. social
  2. current

  england is the oldest nation-state in europe.

  it is a pround and historic nation that is often buried under a "british" identity by the uk government.

  within the european unon, scotland and wales are treated as regional entities, yet england is broken up into 6 regions and is not acknowledged as an entity in itself.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  Exactly. Just football. It's as if football is the only thing that keeps the English identity alive...
• 
  34

  Where did England disappear to?

  by dorayakii in

  1. social
  2. current

  england is the oldest nation-state in europe.

  it is a pround and historic nation that is often buried under a "british" identity by the uk government.

  within the european unon, scotland and wales are treated as regional entities, yet england is broken up into 6 regions and is not acknowledged as an entity in itself.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  
  England is the oldest nation-state in Europe. It is a pround and historic nation that is often buried under a "British" identity by the UK government. Within the European Unon, Scotland and Wales are treated as regional entities, yet England is broken up into 6 regions and is not acknowledged as an entity in itself. It's most as if the government is afraid of saying the words "England" or identifying with the English nationality.

  I once heard an American celebrity, when talking about the movie "Braveheart", say: "The Scottish were long oppressed by the British", without batting an eyelid! The Scottish ARE British! The Kingdom of Great Britain founded in 1707 was a union of England and Scotland.

  The Americans often overuse this word "British" in contexts where is doesn't make sense. If the English themselves don't even know who they are, how can the Americans?

  The other nations of the United Kingdom all have devolved parliaments or assemblies, yet England does not. The West Lothian question deals with the paradox that the Parliament for the whole UK can decide on English matters, but not on certain Scottish or Welsh matters.

  How ironic then that England, the originator of the modern two-tier parliamentary system copied by every other western nation, is unique in being denied even the most basic of democratic rights.

  England is also denied its own national anthem. "God Save the Queen" is a royal anthem which not only represents the UK as a whole, but the symbolic "crowns" of Canada, Australia and other countries where the British monarch is the head of state. In addition, St Patrick's Day gets more official support than England's own patron saint's day, St George! Even though the great bard William Shakespeare's birthday falls of the same day, 23 April, it is still ignored, despite having an alternative cultural significance apart from nationalism.

  Why is it that England and Englishness and even the flag of St George are often associated with racist groups or football hooliganism?

  Do you think that England is disenfranchised?

  Is there a party that stands for English autonomy that does not want total withdrawal from the EU? Is there such a party that does not have slightly xenophobic and strong homophobic tendencies?

  Is there something intrinsically right-wing, xenophobic or homophobic about loving England and being English? Or is it just a coincidence that the only parties that I can see who promote it seem to be that way inclined? (eg. English Democrats, English Independence Party)

  Does anyone else see a problem here or am I concerned about nothing?
• 

  What's the point of a manifesto?

  by dorayakii in

  1. social
  2. current

  what's the point of a manifesto?

  it's all but forgotten after the election.. what happened to the manifesto promises that labourhave made in every election since tony blair first came into power in 1997?

  / icon and title message manifestos are a waste of time.

• 

  dorayakii

  What's the point of a manifesto? It's all but forgotten after the election. What happened to the manifesto promises that Labourhave made in every election since Tony Blair first came into power in 1997?

  Manifestos are a waste of time. When they are not followed they go against the fundamental idea of democracy.

  I'm sure Hitler's manifesto didn't include mass genocide of the Jews and other groups, or the invasion of most European countries. If it had, it's likely the German people would never have voted for him.

  It would be far better to see detailed plans for the next year rather than a bunch of vague, empty promises.
  
  It would be even better if the government had a legal obligation to impliment the manifesto promises that their party made. What do you think?
• 
  39

  "My Book of Bible Stories" returned for being "too violent for kids." You Agree?

  by Witness 007 in

  1. jw
  2. experiences

  obviously a book written for kids by old dumb morons at bethel the book starts with abels murder {with pictures for the kids} people begging to get into the ark before drowning to death...a good lesson for kiddies!

  a women putting a tent peg thru someones temple {with pictures} moses killing an egyptian.

  etc a horrified atheist lady returned the books my mother gave as "gifts" {count 2 placements} after seeing the horrific topics, she decided it was "not apropriate for her kids.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  Yeah, I too questionned my father about the flood drawing when I was about 6 or 7. I asked him why the babies were killed and he said it was because their parents didn't listen. So I asked him why Jehovah didn't save the babies and let Noah and his family raise them. He said that until 13 children were "under their parents authority". I opened my mouth to question him again and he told me that Jehovah knows best.

  I rarely asked him other questions from then on because I knew what answer I'd get. Until I was 13 I was terrified that if my parents suddenly fell away from the "Truth", like the parents of a few of my friends had done, then I'd be killed at Armageddon.
• 
  23

  The world's oldest song (1400 BC)!! midis!!

  by Leolaia in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  these are midis of songs from musical notation recorded in ancient texts.

  it's nothing like what you can download and stuff your hard drive with, but it's interesting to hear what might have been performed thousands of years ago.

  i like the first song a lot and the athenaios one is pretty creepy.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  None of these links are active anymore.

  Are there any new links to these pieces of music?
• 
  26

  Look at this snake!!

  by purplesofa in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6187320/snake-with-foot-found-in-china.html.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  The foot on the snake is an excllent example of an "atavism" and it's one of the evidences of common descent (ie. evolution).

  An atavism is an evolutionary throwback. It involves traits reappearing which had disappeared generations ago.

  nb. It is different from a vestigial feature in that it is a feature that does not usually occur in that particular species. Vestigial features in humans include: the appendix, the coccyx (tail bone), ear muscles which don't move, the plica semilunaris in the inner corner of your eyes, wisdom teeth, goose bumps which serve no purpose without a hairy body to actually keep you warm, and so on.

  Although vestigiality is universal, atavisms are relatively rare.

  Very common atavisms are:

  1. teeth in chickens

  2. whales/snakes/dolphins with hind legs

  3. horses with extra toes

  4. humans with tails (our ancestors had tails)

  5. humans with extra nipples (our distant ancestors had 4-10 nipples to rear multiple young)

  and many many more.........

  Atavisms occurs because the genes for certain features that our ancestors possesed are still preserved in our DNA even though they are not expressed outwardly. Another example of a throwback from our fish ancestors is that all human foetuses manifest gill-slits which close up at a later stage of development.

  If we were not related to other creatures but created specially, these features would not occur. This snake is a fine example of a throwback to its legged ancestors.

  Dorayakii of the "battered to death and preserved in alcohol" class.
• 
  27

  Elder doesn't remember being on judicial committee with my wife

  by JimmyPage in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  my wife was talking to an elder at the meeting recently.

  he asked her if she was still on restrictions (for our pre-marital hanky panky).

  he went on to imply that they would probably be lifted soon.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  When I was "on restrictions" I was told I still had to do field service.

  Shadow, even though I wouldn't expect the elder to have remembered the exact details of the judicial commitee it would have been normal for him to have remembered being there at all!... There are lots of people who have jobs that require remembering simple bits of information and the results can be disastrous if you don't pay attention. One cannot be distracted by other things. A judicial commitee is an important matter, more important than field service, building new kingdom Halls, studies or pioneers as it involves caring for the "one sheep which has strayed". It is especially to be condemned since the elders claim to be led by the spirit of God. I could understand not remembering the other elders who were there, but not even remembering that he was there?? There are only between 60 and 120 people in the congregation, and most of them haven't even had a judicial commitee. There is no excuse...
• 
  421

  70 years = 607?

  by allelsefails in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  70 years of captivity?.

  i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

  that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  As well as my question about the secular or biblical evidence that the rebuilding took place in 537, another very important point was overlooked. I'd like to repost it here:

  "Scholar" said: Your post is utter nonsense. Luke 21:24 refers to a 'trampling' that began in the past with both a present and future verbal aspect however Luke here was not referring to that literal city which of course underwent many such tramplings but the focus is on what that pictured and that was God's Kingdom which would rule at the end of those Gentile Times.

  Please tell me how "estai patoumenh", ("will-be being-trodden", the Greek passive future continuous) can be interpreted as having a "past and future verbal aspect" (sic).

  You sound like you're talking about the aorist aspect, which because of its literal meaning of "unbounded" or "without horizon" has often been misunderstood as a tense describing a continuous action from the past to the future. Can you explain to me again "scholar" what exactly you mean by this Greek verb having a "past and future verbal aspect"?
• 
  421

  70 years = 607?

  by allelsefails in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  70 years of captivity?.

  i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

  that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  1. The matter of the zero year was simply a matter of methodology and when it was realized that there was an error then an adjustment was made. This is no big deal because chronology is a science that has always been in a state of flux. Suh fine tuning did not impact on the validity of the 1914 CE date for the end of the Gentile Times, thanks be to Providence.

  The methodology was to count back 2520 years from 1914 and choose whicheverdate it hit as the "point of origin". The absence of year zero was the only thing that changed the "point of origin" from 606 to 607, there wasn't any fundamental difference in the way the dates were calculated. This type of chronology is simple, it involves simple addition and subtraction.

  It is blatently obvious that if year zero were not the issue, then 1914 would have been modified to 1913. It is so very simple that only someone who is metaphorically blindfolded can fail to notice it.

  2. Accoding to accurate Bible chronology Josiah died in 629 BCE so you are twenty years wide off the mark.

  Your opinion of "accurate bible chronology" disagrees with every piece of archaeological evidence from multiple sources. Even if you thought the Babylonian sources were somehow tainted, incorrect or outright fabrications, the corroborating evidence from Babylon's biggest enemies Egypt, Assyria and Persia should have convinced you. It is only your stubborn, one-sided attitude that prevents you from admitting it. I guess your blind faith in the Bible as the inerrant word of God is the barrier to your seeing the logic and mountains of evidence that prove the "exile" was not 70 years.

  3. Biblical evidence begins Neb's reign in 624 BCE so once again you are twenty years off the mark.

  See above.

  4. 537 BCE is not guesswork but a defined date calculated with the secular and biblical evidence if you have a better date then please put it up. No one suggests that the trek back to Jerusalem took two years but rather 4 months would be reasonable depending on what route the exiles took.

  What is the secular (or for that matter biblical) evidence that the rebuilding took place in 537? (This question is important, please don't ignore it).

  Nobody can give a solid date for the rebuilding because there is no evidence for any of the dates. It is far more honest to say "I don't know" than to invent a date based on an assumption and then blindly believe it.

  5. To say that 607 BCE has no support is simply stupid because there is clear evidence both from the Bible, Josephus and NB chronology to support such a determination. With the latter its records brings us within a twenty years striking distance and when the seventy years is factored into that chronology then Bingo you have a rock solid, irrefutable 607 BCE.

  Show me such evidence then. Where in Josephus' works is 607 supported? 537 and 607 are both pure speculation and guesswork. 539 is the only supported date in that period and the chronology works perfectly until you try to squeeze 607 into it. You get a "phantom" 20 years poppng up that throws out all the calculations of the dates for the famous battles between the major powers in that region. Every thng fits into place until you try to say Jerusalem was pillaged in 607 because we know exactly where all the main protagonists were and what they were doing in that year. It just doesn't work.

  Even the Watchtower's own literature doesn't support 607 as being the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. If the Watchtower itself doesn't support itself how on earth can you have a "rock solid, irrefutable 607"?

  6. Apostates have a hang-up over the zero year problem but fine tuning and correct methoidology proved the validity of 1914 CE.

  Year zero is more than just a matter of fine-tuning. You act as if archaeologists and historians didn't know there was no year zero. These historians had more or less worked out Babylonian chronology long before the JWs stuck their oar in. The fine-tuning was already done, the JWs just bent the evidence to fit their own beliefs, simple.
• 
  421

  70 years = 607?

  by allelsefails in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  70 years of captivity?.

  i myself have always believed that when archaeology disagreed with the bible the bible must be right.

  that is how i dismissed the idea that jerusalem was destroyed in 586/587 bce.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  dorayakii

  Thanks AnnOMaly... I looked t the start of his reign but forgot to look at its length.

  Thanks Leolaia for the clarification. I think the period of time when Nebuchaznezzar was indeed longer than 7 years and may not have coincided with his period of madness if indeed he did have one. Luckily, I'm able to just pop to the British Museum to research the relevant tablets, which is where I'm going now.

  It is very likely that the 7 years of madness was either a Jewish myth made to fulfill prophacy or was about a different Babylonian king. The stories likely were conflated and exaggerated.

  In any case, a prophecy which mentions Nebuchadnezzar by name and says he will be mad for 7 years is obviously not referring to 2520 years of God's Kingdom being dormant especially when the start date of this dormancy does not match any relevant events.

  "Scholar" said: Your post is utter nonsense. Luke 21:24 refers to a 'trampling' that began in the past with both a present and future verbal aspect however Luke here was not referring to that literal city which of course underwent many such tramplings but the focus is on what that pictured and that was God's Kingdom which would rule at the end of those Gentile Times.

  Please tell me how "estai patoumenh ", ("will-be being-trodden", the Greek passive future continuous) can be interpreted as having a "past and future verbal aspect" (sic).

  The continuous (or progressive) aspect does not mean that an action happens in the past and will continue into the future. It always needs to be modified by a tense marker.You've simply looked up the meaning of the the participle in the continuous aspect (which can have a past, present OR future) and taken the "potential meaning" of that particle. However you've ignored the fact that that participle cannot and does not stand alone.

  By way of an example, "going" in English can be conjugated as "I am going", "I was going" and "I will be going" so it has the potential to be in any of those tenses. However, "going" cannot be said to have a tense on its own, it need its auxiliaries to complete its meaning.