I used to work with a couple who declared themselves "practicing atheists".
Even all these years later, I can barely type it for the giggling...
the atheist manifesto
before debating the existence of god, it is necessary to define him.
the god i grew up with was a pretty specific dude.
I used to work with a couple who declared themselves "practicing atheists".
Even all these years later, I can barely type it for the giggling...
http://www.freeminds.org/aftrhour/paradise_lost.htm
Well, I'm not sure I'd say changed the way I view my life, but I can say that it has often helped clarify my view of myself and what's going on around me.
I love music, I find it delicious and fascinating and those who can create it out of nothing have a talent I envy. But as to how I "feel" about it, that's hard. It's like trying to give voice to the thing that has helped me find mine, time and again. I love the freedom that comes when you just can't put words to what you are feeling, and all of a sudden you realize that someone already has--you can point to particular phrase or a few bars and say "Right there--THAT is how I feel."
fact: a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened
i've read the bible many times in many ways with many methods.
but, i don't really see in it any information that contains factual material that benefits anybody.
I think the Bible, as a literary work, contains a lot of interesting, useful information. I've read it, alternately loathed and enjoyed it, and in the end and I simply cannot subscribe to the idea that is is the divine, unerring word of God.
My father, one of the finest human beings I have ever--or likely will ever--know, once told me that reading the bible and declaring it the inspired and unquestionable word of God was the equivalent of compiling the complete works of Dr. Seuss, and declaring it a mortal sin to eat "on a boat with a goat", and then prophesying that the great destructor will return again, and will be known by his tall striped hat--and he will once again wreak havoc on the 'house' (which clearly means 'world') when the 'parents' (Which certainly is alluding to the 'faithful') are gone.
Beware the man who has read only one book.
the october the 1st watchtower has interesting views on the education of jw children.. page 30, in which one jw explains how he ended up in ft service says:.
'we did not associate with our school mates but only with those in the congregation who had good spiritual habits.'.
interesting as this shows judgmentalism and criticism 'even' in the jw congregation.. then on page 31 it explains how parents must offer their children, as early as possible, proper guidance in their choice of school subjects and vocation goals.. 'rather than choose academic subjects that are geared toward a university education, parents and children need to consider courses that are useful in pursuing a theocratic career.'.
I believe that the single most significant factor in the WTBTS's position against higher education is that one of the primary goals of a four-year (or even a good two year) university program is to acquire critical thinking skills. College curricula in general is aimed not only at acquiring knowledge, but developing your own thoughts and and encouraging discussion about the a huge variety of subjects.
Simply put, the WTBTS simply cannot afford to have any of it's members being exposed to a system that encourages, even demands, that one learn how to think. There's just too much out there to be learned that would expose the Watchtower's tactics for what they are: deliberately phrased, expertly written propoganda designed to keep those who believe it in a position to KEEP believing it.
the wts claims they can make mistakes, fix them, and its all good because the bible says the light gets brighter.
thats all fine and good but if thats true then why wouldnt new light appy to all other religions?
how can the say that other religions are false because of what they teach?
That about sums it up, yep!
-just throwing that out there.
i think it stinks.
people have a duty as jurors to go against the grain and fight peer pressure if they sincerely believe in their view.
Speaking as someone who thinks Michael Jackson is a horror of a human being and has no doubt that he's a child molester from WAY back, I still think that what these jurors are doing is self-serving and makes me a little queasy.
I can absolutely respect their decision not to convict based on the letter of the law: If there was not ample evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the case at hand, they could not convict. I don't like it, but even with my limited knowledge of the case via the news, I can see how they would have trouble convicting on the merits of the specific evidence. But in the interview given today, I didn't really hear that--I heard two people talking about how they were bullied into a decision that was wrong, and I think that flies in the face of that camera hogging little old ladies previous actions and doesn't gain them much respect in my book.
i have to laugh at how hard they try to bring people in by knocking on doors and rv's - but once the people are in they are pushing them out the back door with both hands!
we all remember how hard it was to stay there (even if you believed it all) - let alone the head-trips they put you through!!
listen to this.
Crazy religion or not, a man in his 30's who 'sets his sights' on girls in their late teens is going to be seen as creepy.
I'm sure that, in his 30's, he has no 'baggage' of his own and can therefore afford to discriminate. Sound like a real peach.
.
most likely i will be found wherever they have shoes.
dimples
Culinary Supplies and Lingerie.
Which can only occasionally be combined, really.
i went to a concert with a friend of mine last night, and spent a lot of the time amused at his and his friends' behavior.
i loved the music, live music does it for me in so many ways, the show had cracker, danko jones, and carbon leaf, all really reallly good bands, in an outdoor park.
anyway, i'm starting to get irritated form the nudging and hey, take a look over there's, and getting asked to go "trollin" for women.
The group of men you were with may well have been pigs, but I think that some of what you're talking about is simply typical male behavior. Men and women are different creatures in many fundamental ways (and in most cases, I say "Vive la difference!"), and while the crudeness may have run to the extreme due to pack mentality, I still believe that most men won't stick around to discover the inner beauty in a woman unless there's something in the outer package that convinces them a deeper look might be in order.
There's an old bit of wisdom that states: Men fall in love with women they find attractive. Women become increasingly attracted to men they fall in love with. I've found it to be true, personally.
are footstep followers of jesus.
so,,, how do they follow jesus?
what does the evidence show about their claim as footstep followers of jesus?
They refuse blood transfusions--Jesus never had one, why should they?