Saved_JW

Joined

• started 14 topics
• posted 89 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Saved_JW

• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  We are living in the middle of a sexual revolution. Not unlike Ancient Rome.

  It was a culture that was very pornographic, and pedophilia was very much a common practice that was commonplace for adult entertainment. The purpose of a woman [wife] was to bear children and continue the legacy of the family, but the sexual entertainment came from whores and children.

  Roman religion wasnt so much focused on ethical right and wrong as we understand it today by a heavially Christianised civilization. Instead, Roman pantheism focused on Power, Fertility, and pleasure. This was the function of the gods and our human sacrifice needed to reflect those values.

  Even in that culture there was no basis to say that pedophilia was "wrong" or "right" it simply was...a fact of life. Yet another pleasure to indulge in.

  To bring this full circle, specifically American culture. We are in the midst of a sexual revolution. As we move into the Post-Christian era, I see that we are replacing the foundation of morality from judeo-christian values, to more of a post-modern value system which asserts
  "Everybody has their own truth" In other words, no absolutes.

  Mr. Dawkins comments in a way are very progressive and give a clue to what we will be experiencing in the next 10-20 years. I think pedophilia will be considered just another sexual orientation. Actually they already have a word for it.."Inter-generational love"

  By the way, by no means do I agree with Richard Dawkins, and as much as I cringe at the possibility of this happening, I have no doubt that in another 10 years, my moral objection to this practice will be considered bigoted.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Scientists shouldn't be allowed to talk about things except their subject of expertise?

  I wouldn't go so far as to say that. However i think it does become an issue when people who generally look up to him as an authority figure, will blindly accept his opinions on subjects that are not directly related to his field of expertiese.

  Like I said before, I believe Richard Dawkins moral opinion on pedophilia IS consistent with his worldview. Actually, I dont think is really goes far enough.

  The problem I have is when somebody deny's a universal moral absolute then at the same time, judges somebody elses moral opinion [be that sexual or otherwise]

  Without a universal absolute, we have no foundation to say that Pedophilia is or isnt wrong. Its simply an action prompted by the emotions of one or both parties involved.

  I believe Richard Dawkins unlike most of his followers, is actually consistent with the foundation of his worldview, inspite of those who morally object to his opinion.
• 
  320

  Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia,” says it does not cause “lasting harm”

  by chrisuk in

  1. watchtower
  2. child-abuse

  http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  If you think about it. At least Richard Dawkins is being consistent. In a world where there are no moral absolutes, only subjective moral opinion, there is no foundation to say that any sexual orientation is absolutely right or wrong.

  All we are left with is personal opinion and feelings. The sexual desires of one individual differ from that of another. What is good for one, is repugnant for another. I think the bigger issue here is Richard Dawkins giving a moral opinion in the first place. Morality isnt the subject of science, neither is he an authority on the subject itself.
• 
  754

  Theists, why does God allow suffering..

  by The Quiet One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ..specifically, the suffering of animals.

  you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

  i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Why should my feelings or your feelings matter?
• 
  754

  Theists, why does God allow suffering..

  by The Quiet One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ..specifically, the suffering of animals.

  you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

  i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  I don't know cofty. Your asking me to resort to my emotions as a standard for bad. That's the entire point.
• 
  11

  Our "Evolved" culture

  by Saved_JW in

  1. social
  2. current

  just a quick reminder of the "evolved" culture we live in:.

  1- we live in a time where the humanity of a child is not determined by science [chromosomes, dna] but by the feelings of the mother.. 2- gender used to be determined by the objective anatomical, psychological, and genetical differences..now based purely on your emotional self.. 3- philosophy used to be a discipline which sought for ultimate truth, arguments were deliberated, calculated, and worldviews challenged.

  humanity sought to know why we believe not just what we believe.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Just a quick reminder of the "evolved" culture we live in:

  1- we live in a time where the humanity of a child is not determined by science [chromosomes, DNA] but by the feelings of the mother.

  2- Gender used to be determined by the objective Anatomical, psychological, and genetical differences..now based purely on your emotional self.

  3- Philosophy used to be a discipline which sought for ultimate Truth, arguments were deliberated, calculated, and worldviews challenged. Humanity sought to know WHY we believe not just WHAT we believe. Now truth is relative, nobody is wrong and nobody is ultimately right. The Quest for truth is put on the alter of sacrifice so as not to offend FEELINGS.

  4- The bronze age worshipers of Molek in an attempt to usher in a year of good crops and convenience for the family would put their infant child on the bronze alter and watch their child scream and burn to death.

  In a similar vein, our enlightened culture has sacrificed over 300 MILLION children in the most inhumane ways. Dismemberment, Burning alive, and crushing the skulls. Except we used polished terms like "abortion" instead of murder all to maintain a cognitive dissonance and delusion that their sacrifice will bring about an overall convenience for the mother.

  5- We live in a culture where the egg of a bald eagle is more valuable then the life of an unborn human child.

  6- We spend billions of dollars in space exploration looking for a single cell of life, but debate among ourselves whether or not the human embryo is "Really" life.

  7- post birth humans have value; yet there is no value giver

  8- We live in a culture that embraces individual purpose; but denies a purposer.

  9- A culture that values RIGHTS, but has no basis for whence rights come from.

  10 - A culture that thirsts for unity, inclusion, and tolerance yet ironically divides itself by implementing laws that enforce further segregation through "Group rights" [Womens rights, black rights, minority rights ...] and never focus on Human rights.

  Yep thats human progress for ya .
• 
  754

  Theists, why does God allow suffering..

  by The Quiet One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ..specifically, the suffering of animals.

  you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

  i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Because the entire basis of the argument here is this

  Suffering = Bad [assertion] God allows suffering; ergo God is bad
• 
  754

  Theists, why does God allow suffering..

  by The Quiet One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ..specifically, the suffering of animals.

  you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

  i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  When I speak about suffering=bad I am speaking purely in philosophical terms.

  What is the basis for saying [suffering=bad]

  one can even make the case that [living =bad]

  There is no scientific basis for making such an assertion. only feelings of pure conjecture. which is the case Cofty is making.

  unless of course the basis for suffering=bad is purely based on subjective emotions
• 
  754

  Theists, why does God allow suffering..

  by The Quiet One in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  ..specifically, the suffering of animals.

  you can talk about free will/sin/people choosing to not listen to god etc to explain human suffering being allowed.. but how can you love a god that allows animals, that haven't sinned or chosen to not have anything to do with god, to have their short lives ended in often long, drawn out, painful ways.

  i could list stories i've read that would probably make you feel ill, but i'm not looking to shock anyone or start an emotional debate.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  Being a philosophy nut myself, I would have to ask a question with your question.

  how does one determine if suffering is evil? what standard are you judging this by?
• 
  11

  OK The New Releases Are Out: But no one has described them.

  by scotoma in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  apparently jwd has lost all their moles.. hasn't anyone even been to a convention?.

  usually we know in advance..

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Saved_JW

  I believe the "Kingdom Rule" book is a replcement of the "Organized to do Jehovah's Will" book which is distributed only for members seeking to get baptized. The book should place a huge emphasis on Organizational policy and order.

  The "Your Family Can be happy" book should be the replacement for the "The Secret to Family Happiness" book.

  Those are my assumptions up to this point. I will be going to the convention tomorrow thorugh sunday and ill scan an entire PDF of each book by Monday