while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
It's just incredible that somebody can write that sort of stuff in the 21st century in all seriousness, and somebody else can call it "interesting".
Utter bollocks is what it is. Believe any sort of fantasy you like but please stop calling it scientific or even logical.
in recent years significant progress has been made in solving the question of how life originated on our planet.. how do you think theists will respond when it finally happens?
as a former christian i know my reaction would have been something like "well that just goes to show that it takes intelligent life to make life", but for two reasons that defense doesn't work.. firstly it would prove that life is not an ethereal force that originates with god.
there is no 'ghost in the machine', no elan vital.
So that only proves that JWs no longer understand their own basic doctrines.
Life from rocks in a lab is not "life from life". Life from a sperm or egg or cloning a living cell is "life from life".
They - like you - are confusing the argument from complexity with the theological one.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
In other words he is attempting to use "science" as a basis for saying that his own ethical judgements should be preferred even when they run counter to the common sense view or the current consensus. This cuts out the pesky business of having to discuss, reason, and take others' views into account!
Possibly the most ill-informed review in the history of book reviews.
Anybody who claims that Sam Harris doesn't actively seek opposition to his views doesn't know anything about Sam Harris. Unlike Noam Chomsky who refused to dialogue with him.
this is big!
according to what they say if i'm correct an investigation was done back in 1998 in concerning what american companies invested money in to germany.
mike and kim state that a document they have attained shows a list of american firms that had invested into germany as late as 1943. on this list is non other then watchtower !!
something that I personally believe the Watchtower are very capable of doing
The only question that matters is whether or not they did do it. It would appear to be a false accusation. Unfounded, exaggerated and sensationalist stories are counterproductive.
after a very quiet couple of hours detecting this afternoon i was chuffed to find this silver coin.. it is a groat of edward iii of england.
for a long time the only coin available was the silver penny.
if you wanted to spend half a penny or a quarter you literally cut it up.
There was an estate here since at least the 12th century. It was owned by two knightly families and then became crown property for a while after the reformation. I have put together quite a detailed history of the estate by researching national and county archives.
From the 17th century another family lived here for 4 generations. They were on the wrong side of the English Civil War. They were a Catholic family and maintained a priest here. They also fought on the losing side of the first Jacobite Rebellion and then the '45. One of the brothers was hanged at York for his efforts.
The coins I find mostly span the years from around 1180 to the 19th century. I suppose if one person drops one coin once a decade over 500 years that adds up to a lot of coins to be found.
Of course most of them are under a foot of earth. The only accessible finds are those that have been turned over by the plough.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
I don't think Cofty and Viviane are logical positivists because the philosophy of soul is presented with logical consistency and both deny the logical conclusion of the soul. - JM
There is no such thing as "the philosophy of soul". There is nothing logical about belief in a soul.
Making stuff up doesn't qualify as philosophy or logic.
in jw theology, what happens to adam and eve?
are they resurrected and become heirs to paradise on earth?
or will they become two of the heavenly class?
"One redeemer was quite sufficient in the plan which God adopted, because only one had sinned, and only one had been condemned. Others shared his condemnation…One unforfeited life could redeem one forfeited life and no more. The one perfect man, “the man Christ Jesus,” who redeems the fallen Adam (and our losses through him) could not have been a ransom for all under any other circumstances than those of the plan which God chose." – The Divine Plan of the Ages (1886) p.132
The statement that god knew/intended Adam would sin before he even created him is also in Divine Plan.
I might still have a copy, I will have a look.
in jw theology, what happens to adam and eve?
are they resurrected and become heirs to paradise on earth?
or will they become two of the heavenly class?
"One redeemer was quite sufficient in the plan which God adopted, because only one had sinned, and only one had been condemned. Others shared his condemnation…One unforfeited life could redeem one forfeited life and no more. The one perfect man, “the man Christ Jesus,” who redeems the fallen Adam (and our losses through him) could not have been a ransom for all under any other circumstances than those of the plan which God chose." – The Divine Plan of the Ages (1886) p.132
"As many as have shared death on account of Adam’s sin will have life-privileges offered to them by our Lord Jesus, who died for them and sacrificially became Adam’s substitute before the broken law and thus gave himself a ransom for all." – The Divine Plan of the Ages (1886) p.156.
So according to Russell Adam is redeemed. This was changed by Rutherford in 1939.
"The judgement entered against Adam was just, it must stand forever... This text does not say or mean that Adam was or is ransomed, but does mean that the human perfection once possessed by the perfect man Adam (and which human perfection carried with it the right to life, which life and right thereto were forfeited by the wilful disobedience of Adam) is purchased or bought back or ransomed for Adam’s offspring, who were prevented from receiving that life and right thereto by reason of Adam’s sin" – Salvation (1939) p.176.
in jw theology, what happens to adam and eve?
are they resurrected and become heirs to paradise on earth?
or will they become two of the heavenly class?
Russell believed that god always intended the sin of Adam, it was part of his "Divine Plan of the Ages". He taught that Jesus died only to redeem Adam - one perfect life for one perfect life.
Rutherford changed that and taught that Jesus died to redeem the perfect life that Adam possessed but that Adam will not be resurrected. This continues to be their position on the imaginary status of the imaginary Adam.
while reading the magazines the other day it occurred to me that jws never really had a very good answer to that question.
because it was aimed at young people and it said something along the lines, "if you believe in god you have a purpose, but if you don't believe in god your life has no purpose or meaning".
i think that is a faulty analysis of the situation.
I have not read the book you mention
So you think it is reasonable to dismiss his ideas about secular morality as "crazy" and "dangerous" without having read what he actually wrote about it.
"some ideas just need to be excluded" ...... Does he mean literally ban certain ideas?
No. That would be stupid and Harris is anything but stupid.
Most of what Harris says can similarly be divided into the obvious and the ridiculous.
And you base that on not reading the book. Genius!
Either Harris is saying that the idea that Bundy was good should be banned, which is ridiculous, of he is saying that we should all agree such an opinion is wrong, which is obvious.
Facile comment of the year. Well done.
