>>you rang??
You in the market for a new avatar, Scully?
Dave
did you love the animaniacs?
in case you missed it, here's their wonderful spoof of "macarena".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjoepnfrfru.
>>you rang??
You in the market for a new avatar, Scully?
Dave
did you love the animaniacs?
in case you missed it, here's their wonderful spoof of "macarena".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjoepnfrfru.
Did you love The Animaniacs? What am I saying -- of course you did!
In case you missed it, here's their wonderful spoof of "Macarena".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjOePNFRFRU
Here are the lyrics, if you're the "follow along" type:
http://www.lyricsbook.net/lyrics/32060.html
Dave
i kid you not.
page 16 of 1/1/08 wt.
"although evolution is usually presented in scientific language, it is really a religious doctrine.".
>>I suppose in some ways, any science that challenges any belief is a religious doctrine.
That's an excellent point -- never thought of it that way before.
Dave
...in all fiction:jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully.
", says richard dawkins in the god delusion p51.
he goes on to say, "those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror".. would you agree?.
Hey Sylvia,
I'm not trying to be be argumentative, please don't take it that way. I'd just like to discuss this a bit further, if you don't mind. I'm not out to convince you either. I would just like to understand you.
>>I don't assume anything. My convictions are based on what I've read and observed.
Maybe "assume" was a loaded word for me to use. The idea is the same using the word "convinced" though. So let me change the wording:
If you are convinced that anything god does is righteous, then you can certainly find no unrighteousness in him.
Do you agree with that?
For instance, if you read in the Bible that god personally killed babies for the sins of their parents (Noah/Flood), you would consider that a righteous act. Or if you read where God killed a husband and wife for lying about a real estate transaction (Ananias/Saphira), you would consider it righteous.
In other words, no matter what the Bible records god doing -- things you personally would consider heinous if committed by anyone else -- that thing would be a righteous act by virtue of god's having done it.
So I'm asking how you would ever read and observe your way into that conviction?
Dave
...in all fiction:jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully.
", says richard dawkins in the god delusion p51.
he goes on to say, "those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror".. would you agree?.
>> We are talking on the one hand about testable claims regarding a putative God who for the sake of argument is good by definition, and testable claims regarding humans who are not. Two very different species here.
You referred to the Bible's god's claims as "testable". How would you test them?
The claims made by the humans are not actually from humans. They come from the Bible, remember? So they are god's claims. God claims that the faithful and discreet slave as represented by the governing body is placed over mankind and we are expected to obey them.
Ok, obviously God DOESN'T claim that. :-) But it's only obvious because you and I both agree that the interpretation the Watchtower puts forth is wrong.
Your views of the Bible's god are also an interpretation, one handed to you by other humans. Unless you have personal, individual proof that the Bible you use is the unaltered word of God. So from that perspective, I don't think the two species are all that different.
>>I've found no unrighteousness in the God of the Bible.
This is like saying "I've found no black in the white". White is white. If it had black in it, it would be gray. If you assume anything god does is righteous, then you can certainly find no unrighteousness in him. As you said, to each his own. It may comfort you, but can you see why it would not convince someone else?
Dave
...in all fiction:jealous and proud of it; petty, unjust, unforgiving, control freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevent bully.
", says richard dawkins in the god delusion p51.
he goes on to say, "those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to their horror".. would you agree?.
Snowbird and BurnTheShips are saying that the god described in the Bible has the right to do whatever he likes, and those actions are by definition righteous because they are the acts of a righteous god.
I would say that's a dangerous position to be in, since it makes the Bible's god's claim of righteousness entirely untestable. Just like the Watchtower's Faithful and Discreet Slave. They say they are Jehovah's representatives, and so Jehovah expects you to obey them. If they turn out to be wrong, and change course, you're expected to change, too. You can't test their claim.
The Bible says to 'keep testing whether you're in the faith', but that's not really possible, is it? Whatever faith you're in at the moment is the right one, and the only test is whether or not you're in it.
Dave
i wonder if someone who had never been to a kingdom hall would think this is funny.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_8vtmqf0wfe.
Very well done and funny! Though it brings a tear to my eye to think of the time they spent on this video that could have been better spent in the ministry, or in personal study. I'm thinking a "local needs" part is in order...
from curtain up to curtain down he is masterful in relating his perceptions including politics and religion and the nature of living in the residue of both.
he rails against inanity of the original venue ( the john f kennedy center for the performing arts) disallowing the use of its name in publicity, as mr. black's use of the f-bomb is prodigious and not in keeping with the character of the facility... he delicately points out the acutal kennedy for whom it was named was prodigious in the activity the f-bomb pertains to!.
evicerates cheney just because he can..... hunting quail?
Agreed -- Lewis Black is a genius!
For the complete "Pioneer" effect, she should slide a few of these into the package:
not only am i not a smoker, i have never even tried smoking of any kind (besides a weird .
half hearted attempt at smoking blackberry tea from a homemade wooden pipe.
friends of mine who smoke, besides the complicated layers of guilt, talk about a basic .
No, but you don't buy one. You buy a pack. After a few, the "good" starts to kick in. By the end of the pack, you're hooked.
Word to the wise, don't try it. Not at all worth it. Get the same buzz from nicotine gum, if you absolutely must.
Dave of the "2 months cigarette-free, 1 month nicotine replacement therapy free" class