recently i read some essays on animal behavorial patterns and i must say i'm shocked at how little difference (when you honestly consider it) there is between said animals and us, human beings.. this is a very new concept for me personally but here is my take on it (i'm sure its not so new, ex.
evolution) - what if humans in fact are mimicking animals, and not the other way around as we'd like to think.. displays of love and affection, clinginess, mourning etc, they all exist in the animal kingdom, but how are we so different?
a pack of wolves attack and kill a caribou for dinner and its considered nature, the same wolves hunt down a lost man in the woods and now its considered 'evil', and if there are any forest rangers around its guaranteed that they will shoot these wolves.. man's heartless treatment of man is considered 'evil', but if evolution is of any indication (in terms of survival of the fittest) is the 'term' evil just a word to appease our so called conscious?.
Yes, that's true. Animals have social instincts and innate inhibition of aggression. You seldom see wolves killing each others. A population in which everyone is fighing and trying to kill everyone is not a stable and functional population. Such a population will be extinct in a short time.
But social instincts are different from species to species.
i'm interested in how we all view the bible?.
let me start by offering three different options:.
a.. a book that at best may have cultural or historical interest but that is it.. b.. a divinely inspired guide that i consult to make important life choices.
Sometimes it's worse than bullshit. Do you remember Ezekiel baking his bread....with human faeces as fuel for the fire.
sensible, safe sex, in my opinion, should be engaged in.
because, as you get older and are ready to settle down, you will look at your potential sole mate, not for sexual reasons, but for what they have to offer mentally and if they are compatible.
when religion restricts this, and yuo must marry to have sex, i believe that you doom a marriage at the outset, because these young folks marry out of lust, only to have the rose colored blinders pulled off later, and regret the entire arrangement... .
Hmmm...JWS..a bit sad...I hope you believe in sex after marriage aswell! But you are probably right. This happens for a lot of couples.
But nowdays almost everyone in the western world have pre-marital sex. This is a problem only in small cults and among immigrated muslims (muslim boys have sexual freedom, but the girls haven't). Anyhow..it's a new situation for x-cultists to adapt to.
recently i read some essays on animal behavorial patterns and i must say i'm shocked at how little difference (when you honestly consider it) there is between said animals and us, human beings.. this is a very new concept for me personally but here is my take on it (i'm sure its not so new, ex.
evolution) - what if humans in fact are mimicking animals, and not the other way around as we'd like to think.. displays of love and affection, clinginess, mourning etc, they all exist in the animal kingdom, but how are we so different?
a pack of wolves attack and kill a caribou for dinner and its considered nature, the same wolves hunt down a lost man in the woods and now its considered 'evil', and if there are any forest rangers around its guaranteed that they will shoot these wolves.. man's heartless treatment of man is considered 'evil', but if evolution is of any indication (in terms of survival of the fittest) is the 'term' evil just a word to appease our so called conscious?.
OK! You are right in a strictly biological sence. When we don't repress some instincts we could act in an "evil" way, but this evil could often be beneficial to the individual. That's why we still have those instincts.
But now most of us lives in civilized communities. In those we cannot act by instinct.....we have to repress some impulses. As I see it it's about having the prefronal cortex that humans have. We can reason about our actions and inhibit behaviour thats not adaptive in civilized societies.
making people cling to the organization more.
when i found out it was up i told so many people frantically that there is a new study article up and that it had so many changes.
my mother started crying saying how happy she is to be a part of an organization that is truly directed by jehovah... only the true faithful and discreeet slave could have such insight.... another person began to say how great it is to see the celestial chariot on the move.. .
"Could the GB be breathing a sigh of relief, at least somewhat, over the new light regarding the F&DS vs the previous cliff hanger "Deifinition of the word Generation"?"
Yet: Yes, maybe. In a way the FDS change make some sence! It's the GB that are the bosses. And so they have been earlier.
The overlaping generations is just....plain nonsence.
here is an interesting speech by daniel dennett.
i thought it was a balanced and honest talk,.
bringing out both sides of this purposed plausible suggestion.
Sorry Cupcake...I agree with outlaw, I prefere chicken and beer!
But it would be interesting if there are more people here that listened to Dennet...I think he has some important points.
OK OK! Chocolate cake after the chicken!
i am a little confused, i have to admit it is laziness/nausea, i cannot make myself read the latest rag that spews out the new shite, but my question is, what is the future role of the rest of the anointed ?.
if the fds, which now consists of a handful of men, is going to be "appointed over all jesus' belongings" are the rest of the anointed not only redundant now, but into eternity too ?.
Ha ha ha! Crepes for breakfast of champions.
In my language it's the same word "smord" for anointed and greased/oiled. I'm beginning to have some ideas...not only about crepes!
jehovah's witnesses say it is not their responsibility to report child sex abuse to police unless mandatory reporting legislation is in place.. a victorian inquiry on thursday heard that when a jehovah's witness leader hears allegations of abuse they are directed immediately to contact the society's legal department to check their obligations under state law.. jehovah's witness legal counsel rachel van witsen said elders were not expected to know their legal obligations.. "this is done to ensure elders fully comply with any legal requirements that may be applicable in the state in which they reside," she said.. "in victoria if there was mandatory reporting the immediate advice would be to report that immediately.".
the society's director terrence o'brien said the decision to take the allegations to police lay with the victim.. "without mandatory reporting we don't feel that as ministers of religion that's our obligation to do that," mr o'brien said.. however, the organisation would encourage the victim to report it and would co-operate fully with police, he said.. ms van witsen said elders would make an exception if they felt the child was threatened.. "we would report that to appropriate authorities," she told the inquiry.. "we're about stopping child abuse.".
two ministers have been removed from the society for child sex abuse in 40 years of records, the parliamentary inquiry heard.. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/04/11/20/59/jehovah-s-witnesses-stay-in-line-on-abuse.
"However, the organisation would encourage the victim to report it "
Nope....this is a blatant lie. I hope he will be confronted with this.
here is an interesting speech by daniel dennett.
i thought it was a balanced and honest talk,.
bringing out both sides of this purposed plausible suggestion.
Yes, but in order to do that secularism has to offer something in cultural/social aspect. I'm now talking about mainstream religion that have huge social and cultural impact in our societies. This is not about beliefs..not at all. I wonder how many in this thread that have actually watched/listened to that Dennet video.
when modern writers, thinkers, believers in christianity talk about their religion they are almost always depending on saul of tarsus (paul) rather than.
jesus.. there is a good reason for this.
paul wrote letters.
I find it a bit interesting to speculate over Pauls mental/psychological condition.
A lot of researchers have stated that he may have been suffering dfrom temporal lobe epilepsia. This could explain a lot of his actions and writings.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1032067/?page=1
Or, you can just google temporal lobe epilepsy + paul You will get a lot of interesting stuff to read.
