Pretty insightful, for an orang.
*sniff*
in the modern world everybody wants to be "politcally correct".
but what they feel others want to hear.. in a way .
it's a kind of deception.. well .
Pretty insightful, for an orang.
*sniff*
there 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.
What is without question the most endearing quality of the JWN environment is its fresh air. Adults able to have direct conversations without ruffling feathers. I have learned so very much in here. It will be difficult for me to take my leave when the time comes.
in the modern world everybody wants to be "politcally correct".
but what they feel others want to hear.. in a way .
it's a kind of deception.. well .
Shit, but that video is funny.
in the modern world everybody wants to be "politcally correct".
but what they feel others want to hear.. in a way .
it's a kind of deception.. well .
I always try to be as honest as I can and be as nice as I can, but it sometimes doesn't work.
I have until now associated the word honest with you, shamus, and even the word sharp, but not the word nice. Nice. Nope. The image is still not coming to me. I'll try harder.
Cherry's a well paid buffoon who very occasionally says something smart and on more frequent occasions says something not so smart.
my youngest is studying law.
browsing through one of her books i came across a chapter freedom of association.
it covers the well known categories, colour, race, religion, sexuality etc.
The wording used by the Watchtower is indeed insulting and it betrays a fearful response to a perceived threat. The Watchtower is under seige, mostly as a consequence of internet access to former members speaking out. Jehovah's Witnessess are being made to feel fearful of the demon advance and are using avoidance and aversion heaped upon them by the leadership.
But is it a hate crime? I dunno. Does it have the potential to generate hateful behaviour, yes I certainly think so, although I do not know if it will be any more hateful than the behaviour already sanctioned by higher courts - and by this I mean within the American context, since this is where the brains and strategists of the Watchtower and the main legal entity itself reside. Shunning is allowed under current law. Ignoring your children, turning your back on your best friend and pretending he is dead, refusing to talk to your siblings for the rest of their lives is all hateful behaviour. But it is still allowed. Society allows an inordinate amount of leeway for organised religion to practice what they earnestly believe all in the name of freedom of religion. I've cited him before, but that 55-year-old NYC mohel who infected hundreds of boys with genital herpes, at least three of whom died, is a prime example of what Society will allow. Whether or not he knew he was infected while he sucked the severed foreskins off infant boys and spat them out into a bloody pot does not seem to matter. What matters is it is a staunchly defended religious practice that the authorities refuse to meddle with and it continues on today.
What's the test for hate crime for the Watchtower? I ask the question without rhetoric. There are a few lawyers on this board who might chime in. There has to be a point at which Society says enough.
my youngest is studying law.
browsing through one of her books i came across a chapter freedom of association.
it covers the well known categories, colour, race, religion, sexuality etc.
My dear cedars. Your newbie status has nothing to do it. I am myself a newbie within the context of the citizens of this board, some of whom have been here for more than a decade. You said my comment was "the most mind-numbingly ridiculous thing anyone's ever said to me on here" and I responded that you haven't been here all that long and that you should be patient. The unexpressed, and I thought obvious, point being a few weeks of ever is not an inordinately long period of time. Stick around. You haven't seen anything yet.
Again, with apologies to the OP for the tangent the thread has taken.
in the modern world everybody wants to be "politcally correct".
but what they feel others want to hear.. in a way .
it's a kind of deception.. well .
Don Cherry prides himself on not being politically correct, size. That he openly sneers at political correctness is part of his trademark personna. Sometimes when I watch the man in action I am amused, other times impressed, still others repulsed. He often appears on television with his longtime sidekick named Ron MacLean who at times just looks at the blathering old man with bald incredulity. Cherry's remarks above might have enjoyed a more supportive listening had they been couched in less inflamatory language, but then they wouldn't have thrust Mr. Cherry into the limelight that he loves so well.
As to torture and the circumstances under which its use might be morally justified, we are getting into an area where the boundary is not clearly defined. We are citizens of countries that go to war, ostensibly to defend or protect causes that are right and noble and so important to us that we will cause some of us to give up their lives. By going to war our countries also acknowledge that there will be collateral damage, the unavoidable, heartbreaking maiming and killing of innocents caught in the crossfire, yet we nevertheless go to war. Where, then, is the line to be drawn in war? And what about a war that is being waged only in one's own personal sphere? If, for example, my grandson was kidnapped and hidden away in some dark hole in the ground, and by some circumstance I was able to apprehend a person who had in his possession a video of him raping and torturing the child, would there be any bounds to what I would do to extract the information I needed to locate the boy and rescue him? I submit there would be none. Where the line might or might not be drawn from my very personal perspective would be the aftermath.
there 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.
You make excellent points, as usual Shelby. Yes, I acknowledge that threads of truth are woven throughout the Bible, just as you acknowledge that there are threads of non-truth woven into it, too. That the Qu'ran borrows heavily from the Bible (which is typified by Islam as an earlier revelation) does not constitute it as an independent historical work. I concur that just because something is not known does not in any way constitute a proof that it does not exist, or that it has not happened. Where we part company is evidence that it can happen, that it is possible to prove it. Rape is possible, the evidence for its reality is immense beyond calculation. The discovery of Kepler 16b comes as no surprise to scientists and has not rocked the world. The possibility for a Kepler 16b can be explained by astrophysics and the proof for a Kepler 16b can be provided by technology. I might respectfully submit the physical manifestation of those things held to be true through faith alone - like the resurrection of the dead for example - would indeed rock the world to its very core because there is no means known to demonstrate that they are possible within the scope of the laws (yes, as we at present understand them) that govern the universe. It is perhaps a personal deficiency, an inordinate degree of skepticism, that prevents me from allowing a degree of credibility to assertions that cannot be proven theoretically but only by the manifestation of themselves. Since they are not manifest I cannot perceive them. Since I cannot perceive them and furthermore can't construct in my mind the conditions under which they might possibly be true I choose not to assign to them a degree of importance that would cause me to think and live my life differently than I do.
I don't want to convince you of anything, either. You find joy in what you believe. You are a happy, upbeat and enthusiastic individual and only a fool or an ignorant brute would want to take that away from you. Not that anyone could, anyway.
in a 10 month investigation, sunday night infiltrates one of the worlds most worrying new cults.
but most chilling, this cult is australian, spreading and described as worse than waco.
we go inside the cults headquarters to meet the leaders and their followers who claim their lives have been changed forever.. http://au.news.yahoo.com/sunday-night/features/article/-/10276027/inside-australias-chilling-new-cult/.
The link works fine here in Canada. I haven't watched all three videos but just the cult expert's initial comments are sufficient to tell the tale - the fact that they are isolating themselves in a compound is ominous.
i have been facing a small dilemma for some years now.
i have been in the truth since i was 5 years old.
after experiencing some troubles with man-made rules (non-scriptural, told me that i absolutely could not join my small school's football team) in the kingdom hall when i was about 16, i stopped going to take a step back and look at what was going on.
I was going to recommend that you read Crisis of Conscience, but I see that has already been offered. Consider this an endorsement. As you cherish your Christianity I might also suggest you read Franz' sequel, In Search of Christian Freedom in which he shows the way to be true to your core beliefs and values without the artificial restraints of organised religion. All the best on your journey.