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.
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.
Here it is, positivism driven to its ultimate, and crazy, logical conclusion. - SBF
I hope anybody who read this dismissive comment takes half an hour to listen to Sam Harris' talk.
If you find his presentation thought-provoking, buy the book, then seek out objections to his ideas and then read his responses to those criticisms. Whether you ultimately agree with him or not you will observe that he is not "crazy". I am certain you will at least be impressed by his thoughtful and intellectually honest approach.
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.
Sam Harris' ideas on the secular basis for ethics are very interesting. There is nothing shallow about what he actually said or wrote. He is clear-thinking and intelligent.
His detractors have created an industry around quote-mining his writings.
Anybody who believes a single word he is supposed to have said that they didn't hear directly from Harris in context is a fool.
The Moral Landscape is outstanding.
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.
John_Mann - Outstanding use of the word "pleonasm". Well done!
There are things that can be logically deduced but for which there is no empirical evidence.
Therefore you definition of positivism is too narrow.
Positivism excludes superstition “Ignoramus et ignorabimus”. Why would that be evil?
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.
Happy hunting Eden!
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.
I found a second silver coin this weekend!
Detectorists refer to finding a "hammy". Before the 17th century coins were struck by hammering the silver flan with a die and a big hammer. That is why they are so often off-centre. Finding a hammy is the goal of any detectorist - one or two a year is a good hit rate.
This one is a half-groat of Queen Elizabeth I. It dates to around 1580. It is tiny compared to the one in the OP at just 17mm. I already have one identical to this but somebody has hammered a nail through her face. It was a time of religious strife. She was a Protestant Queen in a post-reformation England. It's not uncommon to find Lizzie coins with deliberate damage to her portrait. The owner of the estate where I live was involved in the Catholic "Rising of the North" around this time.
The two pellets to the right of the badly worn - or vandalised - bust indicates it is a twopence.
The inscription on the obverse reads "E D G ROSA SINE SPINA" which translates as "Elizabeth Dei Gratia (by the grace of god) A Rose Without a Thorn"
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.
"or which is capable of logical ... proof"
when they sent out internal letter to elders regarding the binding of elders book , worldly men could do the job but only under supervision of a elder.
but under no circumstance could a sister touch the book.
the idiots put it in print, any elders wives on this forum should take it up with their man.
Revelation 14:4 describes the 144,000 as "those who did not defile themselves with women".
No wonder christianity has traditionally viewed women as evil temptresses.
one thing i have enjoyed since leaving the jehovah's witnesses is learning about science and evolution.
it's so great to be able to look at things without the fog of religious belief clouding things.
of course i have learned a lot from cofty and his threads on evolution, but one thing i struggled with was what causes instinctual behavior in animals for example, what tells birds to fly south for the winter?
That is an excellent article LisaRose thanks for posting that.
I think a lot of people struggle with the idea that behaviour is rooted in biology. There is a good example involving voles. In one species the males are good loyal attentive dads and in a closely related species the males are deadbeats who don't stay around after impregnating the female. Scientists identified a gene that they could manipulate to transform their behaviour.
It makes me wonder about free-will.
