Not confined to JWs. It's a nonverbal communication technique, used deliberately by some and unconsciously by others. When neutral it conveys assertiveness, confidence and focus, and it can be combined with other facial expressions to convey a range of other nonverbal proxies for emotion, like anger, aggression, curiosity, even love. What is the message you're getting from the JWs who do this? Figure that out and you will figure out why they do it (but I expect it is because they want to convey a message of absolute and unbending confidence in what they believe.)
Nickolas
JoinedPosts by Nickolas
-
18
What's behind the JW "stare"
by InterestedOne inin my interactions with jw males guarding the kh entrance or with the various males my study conductor would bring to our study (one i later found out was considered a "heavy," meaning he was supposedly really good at answering tough questions), i notice they stare intensely at me and i start fumbling my words.
in one case, i went to a different kh where no one knew me and got the same stare at the door.
is this stare deliberate, and if so, what is behind it?
-
-
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Nickolas
I KNOW there is a god...
I still have some difficulty with this precise sentiment, ST. If I was to flip it around and assert that I KNOW there is no god I would expect to be challenged. I cannot know there is no god, as much as I live my life as if there is no god, any more than you can know there is a god, as much as you live your life as if he exists.
There could even exist multiple "goldilocks zones" . . . each one profoundly different from the other, but lending itself to the evolution of matter into an organised complexity in it's own unique way. Each unique type of "goldilocks zone' is then subject to the same probabilities of recurrence under the anthropic principle. Suddenly the parameters become even wider.
One needs only to consider the range of environments present here on earth to appreciate the virtual certainty of multiple goldilocks zones in the universe. There are multiple hostile environments supporting life - the sea bed, sulphur springs, the polar regions - in which some life forms thrive where others would instantly perish. There are plenty of examples of environments right here on earth that are not "just right" for one kind of life but are "just right" for others.
The anthropic principle (I wish it could be called something else)
Too close to anthropologic?
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Nickolas
Oh, but I do love an intelligent exchange. Please, carry on.
(and goodnight)
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Nickolas
Am I "better"... than anyone? I absolutely do NOT think so, but often think quite the opposite (there are SO many that I could never hold a candle to... both those who have... intellect and/or status... and those who have absolutely nothing... except big hearts).
If God reads hearts, I trust He will find mine in order, even if I do not believe in Him.
I don't think the discussion changed much for many who participated, but it was a very refreshing discussion, IMHO, and I look forward to others.
I will take that as a goodbye - for this thread, I mean. Thank you for contributing to what has been an interesting conversation.
Time for me to take my leave for the day. Up early in the morning.
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Nickolas
for NOW, because that will not always be the case)... absolutely negates its existence?
unproven and unprovable.
But if you said you saw/heard them... and others say so, as well... who am I to dispute it? I can only say, "Well, okay, dear Nick, YOU saw them... or believe you did... and so, more power to you."
Consistent with my wishes to you.
Except others who see/hear them, as well... right?
You are right again. A good analogy might be the Flat Earth Society.
So, too, the spirit realm... and those here who belong to it... when we discover (find) it... as well as when we are discovered (found) by those who belong to it, both here AND there.
Again, you are telling me that you are aware of a world other than the one I can perceive. Furthermore you are telling me that you are aware of what goes on in that world. I respect your right to believe these things. They are not available to me.
That it (He) always existed makes absolute sense...
Not to me.
then (1) such bangs should still be occurring (are they?), and (2) if they are, then there is not a UNIverse, but MULTIverses. In which case, how do we not know that some from OTHER verses are in fact making "contact"... but not necessarily empirically?
We don't. There might be a multiverse, but we haven't got a testable proof of a theory, so we do not entertain it beyond what is merely possible. Other universes making contact with this one is an interesting hypothesis, but lacking any supporting theory it is just that, an hypothesis. Same goes for the existence of God. It is an interesting hypothesis but, like the multiverse hypothesis, without evidence. If you are asking can God be real because we can't prove otherwise my answer is no. It goes to my comment before this one.
That's inaccurate, dear one. Some was written by non-eyewitnesses, but not all. Even so, if what you say is true, then transcriptions of witness testimony should be invalid (i.e., each witness should be required to write down and sign his/her own account, otherwise it's invalid)... And keep in mind, please, that all kinds of non-eye witness items/documents/records are considered evidence, so long as the person who compiled them can be examined. But even that's not always necessary - so long as someone can authenticate the item... it can still be considered a record... and evidence.
I thought the context was creation/evolution. Adam didn't write Genesis, far as I remember. Eyewitness testamony is quite often wrong, actually. It is only when eyewitness testamony is accompanied with physical evidence (there's that word again) that it is more credible. We are talking about the credibility of what people are saying is truth. I do not take them on their word. They have to show me more evidence or I will not be inclined to believe what they are trying to tell me.
This is true, but it totally discounts what we do not know... but believe POSSIBLE. Many in the science world BELIEVE we should live forever... and spend a great deal of time trying to find the key to that.
Only if they are completely out of touch with reality. All species go extinct. All. We will go extinct too. We arrived only a heartbeat ago and we will depart even sooner.
I think MANY try to do good "just in case there is a God"...
Then their motives are insincere. I much prefer those who do good because they feel they should do good, regardless of the existence of God.
offered with a mild voice, a warm heart and in the spirit of the category in which this thread was started.
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Nickolas
God created the universe... but something else happened that required God to send down to Earth his Son [Jesus] to save us. Am I closer?
That's closer to what I understand, dear Nick (again, peace to you!).
Thanks. It is much better to understand another's perspectives more clearly when comparing them to my own. What bothers me is, if God is omniscient - knows what's going to happen even before it happens - how was it He got blindsided?
(and I will reiterate it for you, since you appear unable to grasp it):
meow?
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Nickolas
What MAKES something exist?
Sorry, but I don't get what I perceive to be a double-standard, dear one, so any further clarification you are willing to indulge me with will be greatly appreciated.
Sure. The New World did not exist to the Europeans until it was discovered. Did it actually exist before it was discovered? Of course it did. Did some visionary Europeans postulate mathematically that another part of the Earth existed, yes to that too. The key difference between the New World and the Spiritual World is the latter cannot be proven, because it cannot be perceived but through individual revelation or, as it is said, through death, which means it cannot be proven in the life in which we are. I can postulate that there are fairies in my garden, and I can believe it too, but that does not make it real to anyone but me. To everyone else, they do not exist. As to galaxies and stars and planets, we have ample evidence that they can and do exist, therefore we are not surprised when we discover them. The same cannot be said for the spiritual world of which you speak.
Then now I AM confused, dear one; if it is theoretically possible... why deny the possibility absolutely?
But I do not deny the possibility. I deny the possibility that there could have been a being sufficiently complex to create such great complexity. The watch is less complex than the watchmaker. The pot is less complex than the potter. The universe must be less complex than the creator. But to deny that something of such great complexity as the universe could have possibly come into existence on its own means that something of even greater complexity came into existence on its own, or always existed. It does not compute.
The answers to these depend, I think, on whether one accepts or rejects the RECORD (and it IS a record... regardless of whether one considers it too old... or too unbelievable...
The record of which you speak was written only thousands of years ago by non-eye witnesses. It does not, sadly, qualify as a record but as an assertion. An assertion without any evidence to back it up. Not too old. Far, far, far too recent, and far too primitive.
I can only live for today... and do what I can TODAY... in the HOPES that there is a tomorrow. For me AND for mankind.
It is a wonderful hope, but the important thing is living for today because you can have no assurance whatsoever that tomorrow (whether that be the day after today or the millenium after today) will ever come for mankind. What you can be assured of based on the evidence of record is that you, personally, will not exist as a human being after a very short period of time.
C'mon, dear Nick... if this is all there is and there's nothing after this... so what? You're dead, you're dead. BUT... I think it's a bit too late to start apologizing and saying what you would've, could've, should've done... after that. And just in case I AM granted life after... I don't want to be begging and pleading as to what I woulda, coulda, shoulda. I DO believe we only have this one life to prove ourselves... that after we die, it's too late. Whether there is life on the other side... or not.
Pascal's Wager, my dear. I think God would be unimpressed if I kinda, sorta believed in Him just in case He turns out to exist after all.
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Nickolas
Is it POSSIBLE that there ARE beings that DID form... a billion or even many billions of years ago... perhaps even BEFORE the "bang" (possibly even being responsible for "it" occurring - even some "experiment" gone wrong/project gone right)
Of course. But the original problem redoubles over onto itself. This is much the same sentiment as expressed in the quote mining video of Richard Dawkins provided several pages back. Yes, maybe life on earth was seeded by some advanced civilisation. I don't think so, but it is still theoretically possible. But where did they come from? Did God create them and they created us? Where did God come from? Who created God?
I'm just saying that, in MY mind... what you're suggesting, if true... tends to lend itself to mean that we AREN'T going to figure the universe out or find anyone else... even in a billion years!
Probably not. Then again, we won't be around in even a million years. Probably not in another 10 thousand years, or even a thousand. Does that thought disturb you?
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Nickolas
Because they obviously haven't "found" us.
What if they have found us? Why would we know? How would we know? We look through the Hubble telescope at galaxies that are billions of light years away and can't possibly imagine how those galaxies have changed in the time it has taken for the light to reach this part of the universe. Radio waves have been exiting the earth for about a century. If there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe they would have to be closer than 100 light years away to have received them and closer than 50 light years away to have received them and responded. For life to have begun someplace else and evolved to a similar level of intelligence a billion years ago and for us to know about it, they would have had to start transmitting signals (which cannot by relativity theory travel faster than c) and we would have to be within a billion light years from them. But the universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years wide. It is far, far more probable that we would not be aware of a civilisation a billion years more advanced than we are and just as improbable that they'd be aware of us.
-
269
The Hubble, Yahweh, the Bible, and faith.
by Nickolas inthere have been several threads in which the views of the universe provided by the hubble space telescope have been discussed.
i guess this will be another one.
there's a new series being broadcast here in canada on the oasis hd nature channel entitled hubble's canvas.
-
-
Nickolas
I do NOt believe that ALL that has happened over the last 4 billion years or before that since got caused what we know as the universe into being, was so that Christ could save us.
I must have been extrapolating. That is what I understood and I stand corrected. I now perceive that you believe that God created the universe, set evolution in motion that led to the appearance of humankind and but sometime within this dynamic something else happened that required God to send down to Earth his Son Jesus to save us. Am I closer?