jeepers...we all know that humans have only been on this planet for 6,000 years...stupid scientists getting confused again...must be that satan bloke who goes round fiddling with all the evidence that humans have been on this planet longer than 6,000 years!.
http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-can-t-explain-who-made-these-huge-8-000-year-old-glyphs-in-kazakhstan?.
back in 2007, a series of huge, mysterious geoglyphs were discovered in the grasslands, or steppes, of kazakhstan.
Cool, a mystery.
Since anatomically modern humans have been on the earth for 100,000 to 200,000 years, it's not a huge leap to infer that they had the same or at least similar cognitive abilities as us, just without all of the modern scientific knowledge and resultant technology.
We humans are curious people.
It will be interesting to see what archaeologists make of this.
These glyphs predate "Adam and Eve" so it's a problem for anyone that interprets the Bible literally.
well, my sister-in-law and her husband, special pioneers for only a couple of years, just got their letter.. her comment was along the lines of, "they're having to do this because they forgave all those kingdom hall loans a few years ago and the brothers aren't donating anymore.".
when my wife told me, i laughed so hard i farted.
;).
well, my sister-in-law and her husband, special pioneers for only a couple of years, just got their letter.. her comment was along the lines of, "they're having to do this because they forgave all those kingdom hall loans a few years ago and the brothers aren't donating anymore.".
when my wife told me, i laughed so hard i farted.
;).
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
EdenOne: And, again, notice that I'm not discussing religious belief systems in general, but an individual's belief.
I get that and appreciate the distinction you are attempting to make. But you are still using the word "respect" inappropriately.
Please correct me if I am wrong: as I recall English is not your native tongue. Is that right or not?
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
EdenOne: Do you think other person's property is deserving of due regard?
No. But we should respect the property rights of others. We should also respect the boundaries of their property. (The first can be any property, whereas the second would relate to real property).
We should respect the law generally, but if there is a law that is bad or wrong then civil disobedience is always an option, just be willing to suffer the consequences.
In every instance I can think of respect is either directly related to a person or to rights they enjoy as such. There are many things for which the concept of respect are simply inappropriate.
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
EdenOne: Just because isn't included in the definition, it doesn't mean it's ruled out.
True.
EdenOne: It can be worded "due regard for the beliefs of others"
False. You don't get to change the meaning of words to fit your beliefs.
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
EdenOne: it can be argued that for evil people to do good things, it takes religion.
It could, but you would lose. There is simply too much evidence against that thesis.
But more importantly you are missing the central point which you yourself are trying to prove. That particular line of reasoning you proffered is just a red herring.
Focus.
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
EdenOne: My point [is] if the Christian-themed belief of that particular individual is worthy of respect or not.
I can easily respect the person and what they do without respecting their beliefs. Easily!
Two questions:
-
If you carefully and thoughtfully ponder these two points I think you'll see what those of us that disagree with you have been trying to get you to consider.
Also, you must separate what a person does from what they believe.
Oubliette.
i am inclined to start this thread in response to some comments made in other threads.
i have been coming around these forum for quite some time now so whatever you find in here is not just related to something someone may have said this week.
it can go months back as well.. i have seen many who claim to respect the belief of others but when it comes down to applying it into practice, things take a whole different tune.
EdenOne, you bring up an interesting, although false, dichotomy. The basic problem with your scenario is that it is very one-sided. You only tell the good, positive side of the story--the humanitarian believer--while ignoring the fact that there have also been many atrocities committed by religious zealots who acted according to their beliefs, often the very same set of beliefs as your good Samaritan.
In contrast, there have likewise been a great many good deeds done by nonbelievers, secular humanists (with or without that particular self-identification) that are simply altruistic by nature. That behavior can just as easily be explained through the lens of evolutionary biology.
This is why it is so essential to separate what a person does from what they believe. They are not--and I've attempted to make this point repeatedly on this thread--intrinsically linked.
In the words of Steven Weinberg, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
i have not been to a meeting for over a year.
yesterday, when my wife returned from the 1 day assembly, i got an invite for dinner next sunday.
i said i would think about it, to be honest, as nice as the people are, it would just be boring listening to their comments about everything jw.
I may or may not accept. Sometimes I hang out with non-JW family members for similar reasons.
Are they good cooks? Will there be wine?
