listening to 2 of my current favorite thinkers debate/discussion.
i've been looking forward to this since i found out about it a month ago.
hope some of you get a chance to listen.
SBF I just wonder why... Sam Harris has to... make a pause after every... four words or so... without apparent regard... for sense or normal... speech patterns.
It's for the benefit of his audience so we can fully process his great ideas. Nothing to hide after all.
Peterson is intentionally a faster speaker so he impedes clarity and hides his incoherence
january 19, 2017 to all bodies of elders in wales re: prerecorded memorial and special talk 2017 - welsh.
everyone here knows there is a difference between the writing department and writing committee right.
Yep, you sound like a Witchtower insider
january 19, 2017 to all bodies of elders in wales re: prerecorded memorial and special talk 2017 - welsh.
Richrd Oliver: Menlo Park was it's [sic] own corporation with it's [sic] own bylaws and constitution
Given your indefensible comments, you most certainly work for the Witchtower, but you certainly are not part of the writing committee.
gorby went to the kh for family reasons today.. and landed right away middle in a pseudo history watchtower article.
just that aspect of the jw belief he is so sensative about.. so 1918 and 1919 are changed with one mark of a pencil.
the argument of change was in the past the argument of the doctrine.
I take it back. I read the link from shepherdless. They are staying a cult.
it is our experience that love of money brings action towards accumulating abundance of wealth which ultimately convinces the owner that “i was wasting my time” which in turn motivates him to turn into philanthropy (like bill gates and co did).
this is a perfect design (designed to work independently of god) like a journey of which the first half is wasteful and the second half is fruitful, and it is to be viewed as a whole.
hence it is unlikely that jesus would say: “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of god.” (mathew 19:24) verse is obviously attributed to jesus by later writers.. this means question of morality is not complicated if viewed as a whole process.
Oppostate
Hey, you are not Simon! get a different picture. Stop deceiving the people who click into a thread just to read Simon's comments
just seen reference to a recent letter read to congregations about this, anyone got more info please?.
According to what I was taught as a JW, when the end is near it is expected that their numbers dwindle.
I think they are right. It's simple logic. Actually, it's almost tautological. I would rephrase it in a better way though
When the numbers dwindle, then the end is near.
gorby went to the kh for family reasons today.. and landed right away middle in a pseudo history watchtower article.
just that aspect of the jw belief he is so sensative about.. so 1918 and 1919 are changed with one mark of a pencil.
the argument of change was in the past the argument of the doctrine.
I wonder why the WBTS decide to revisit these old doctrines. What is the added value of doing this? They run the risk that more JW's get confused and leave. And I do not see how these revised or clarified old doctrines increase the faith of the readers.
The only reason I can think of is that influential people around or closer to the gb members are sometimes raising issues (inconsistencies) with these old doctrines. Why else would they bother? Who in todays congregation is ever interested about what happened then, with Russell and Rutherford.....
Any ideas?
I think is part of their clumsy efforts to slowly transition to a mainstream religion. The new generations reject religion in general, but they reject cults even more. The unprincipled financial leaders of the WT know it and are trying to bring the profits again by creating a more mainstream theology.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Catholicism is the only system that have logical internal consistency
I am speechless
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
John Mann
Evil is a human construct. We invented the term and have provided various definitions time and time again. As I said before, these concepts and definitions are created to try to improve the collaboration efforts of humans, which ultimately advance our survival rate. Bad "morality" is that which reduces our survival, and good "morality" is that which improves our survival. Staying alive is the purpose.
Consciousness? we will get there, if we live long enough. The "help" from the Bible turned so useless in many simple cases that it would be pointless to try to use it in this complex quest.
one of the most persistent arguments for belief in god centres on the necessity of an ultimate law-giver and epitome of goodness.. a softer version is seen in the genuine concern that a loss of faith will result in a corresponding loss of a moral compass - a more strident argument links the existence of good and evil with proof of the reality of god.
it is often asserted that without god, moral decisions degenerate to nothing more than personal preferences and the victory of "might is right".. i want to succinctly lay out my response as an atheist, and show that a supreme being is not required for objective morality.. it is helpful to distinguish between absolute morality, objective morality and subjective morality.
christian apologists frequently conflate the first two, and secular debaters often fail to point out the difference.. theists who disagree on everything else, are unanimous that god is perfectly good.
Without having read any book or opinion on the issue, I have to say that morality is a subjective concept that when you strip it of all its subjectivity what you have left is guidelines for collaboration among humans to improve our survival rate. Human evolution at its best... or worst. Time will tell
Morality from God???
We humans created God... and He created morality... Therefore we, humans, are the source of morality. Problem solved. Fear not my child.
EDIT
Simon, you stole my thunder, and I am glad:
we create him in our image rather than the other way around. Which is probably why he's usually such a jerk.
Truer words had never been spoken before
