|
Post by geode on Jan 18, 2019 11:30:59 GMT
We are in an era where many religions are losing members, especially Millenials. Often the internet is cited as a cause, since the claims of various faiths can be evaluated using many resources online. I grew up a Mormon, and they are imploding in terms of numbers in some countries such as Mexico. For decades they have talked about their rapid growth, but in fact they have stopped growing. The Mormon church has promoted sanitized versions of its history for many decades, but the real history is very accessible now. Just a couple of years ago this church started posting essays on their website without announcement or fanfare. It is thought this was done to get their own versions out there to counter anti-Mormon versions. Some members were shocked at the content. For the first time, the modern LDS church was admitting that their founder Joseph Smith had multiple wives, including a young teenager. This was news to some members that had not read non-Mormon histories. Some Mormons were actually shocked to the point of leaving their faith. The irony is that members had been excommunicated in the past for publically talking about practices and policies now admitted to be true. This church quietly changed the central temple ceremony at the start of the year to be less condescending to women. This was undoubtedly done due to long-standing complaints by female members. They now make promises to God instead of their husbands in the ceremony. This must have been done to help retain members. Doubt is part and parcel to determining what one will come to believe. Here is how one of the most senior Mormon leaders is teaching young Mormons about doubt. I think this church will lose more members than they retain with such a technique where those that doubt are shamed and blamed for going through a crisis of faith. In my experience those with a confident faith in their church or religion have had it tested by going through periods of doubt. Jana Riess remains an active member of the Mormon church, but often is willing to criticize its leaders. Most that dare to express what she does have left the church, either willingly or unwillingly (excommunicated). She writes: "That has just not been my experience in talking to people in a faith transition. For starters, this whole notion that doubt can never be a catalyst to a deeper faith is fear-based hogwash. Some people who have a faith crisis return to the fold with even stronger beliefs. It’s not a large group, but it happens often enough that we can’t simply depict doubt as antithetical to faith. But I’ve never seen a case where a doubter successfully returned to the Church through shaming tactics such as these. Not once." Full article: How not to treat doubters
|
|
|
So...
Jan 15, 2019 6:05:43 GMT
Post by geode on Jan 15, 2019 6:05:43 GMT
How many bona fide cult movies do you think there are? That is an excellent question? I wonder if anybody will offer an excellent answer.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 14, 2019 9:38:43 GMT
Some part of it may be explained in their educational status and their average household income. They are at the dead bottom in the US in terms of average household income and almost dead bottom in terms of education. Here is an explanation why JWs lag behind the other groups. The Watchtower actively discourages their members seeking a college education. "It is no shame for a person to learn a trade and work with his hands. Indeed, these days it is getting to be the practical thing to do. That is another reason why some parents now have second thoughts about this matter of a college education. They choose to channel their boys and girls into more useful trades in high school where such things can be learned, at least in part. After graduating from high school, they may continue briefly in a trade school or get valuable on-the-job training. Then they qualify for a trade and avoid the anguish often suffered in executive-type positions. Parents who are Jehovah’s witnesses have another very sound reason for channeling their children’s lives into useful trades. They know from fulfilled Bible prophecy that today’s industrial society is near its end. Soon it will be given its death stroke by Almighty God himself. (Prov. 2:20, 21; 1 John 2:17) After that, in God’s new order a reconstruction work will be done to transform this entire earth into a paradise. (Luke 23:43) Trades of many types will be very useful then, as will skills in agriculture and homemaking. So by guiding their children away from the so-called ‘higher’ education of today, these parents spare their children exposure to an increasingly demoralizing atmosphere, and at the same time prepare them for life in a new system ats well." I think that their real distrust of colleges and universities is that those who attend are introduced to many new ideas and start to question what they have been taught as children. Watchtower distrusts college
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 14, 2019 9:22:46 GMT
Some part of it may be explained in their educational status and their average household income. They are at the dead bottom in the US in terms of average household income and almost dead bottom in terms of education.
Well... Yeah. That makes sense: Careers, and higher education to pursue those careers, aren't their priority. Their main focus, their life's purpose, it their preaching work... Now.. Here's where I have an issue with "The End of The System Is Here" mentalities: Baby Boomers being told not to worry about careers and education because the world is ending soon... are now at retirement age.. with no real retirement plan.. You know who has plenty of time for the preaching work?... People who don't need to work because they can now afford not to. When I was studying for my degree in geology the brightest all of us majoring in the subject was Randy, a JW. He dropped out and moved to some rural location to await the end. Unlike other Christian denominations the JWs have listed specific dates....that of course come and go with nothing like the "end" occurring. I agree that this practice has been dangerous to the welfare of their members in telling them that they need not plan for a future before it all ends. I don't know if Randy ever went back to college as the JWs discourage higher education and advise members to not go to college.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 14, 2019 8:57:41 GMT
When i was a kid a mates older brother had this on video and we use to sneak it out of his collection and watch it as often as we could. I hadn't seen it in years and years and ran across a copy last year and it's nowhere near as good as i remember it but it brought back loads of memories. 5/10 I was amazed and drawn to it by the amount of nudity in it as an adolescent but it seems tame now as an adult. I haven't seen it since first release. It played in a theater I worked in as a projectionist. Somehow I doubt that it has improved with age.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 13, 2019 9:00:57 GMT
Calvinism and its notions of predestination actually are the polar opposite of what Jesus taught in my opinion. "Once Save Always Saved" is basically heretical but made even worse by the notion that those who will be saved are already predetermined. Does the doctrine of eternal security derive its roots in Calvinism? Thanks for letting me know that the doctrine of eternal security is also linked with the notion that those who will be saved are already predetermined. No, although I think it is most associated with Calvinism in modern times but the concept of eternal security predates Calvinism and goes back to the earliest days of Christianity. Some church fathers accepted it, others did not. The Gnostics bought into it. I think it is fundamentally wrong. I most often heard it defended that if someone sins after being "saved" they were were saved in the first place. That takes all of mankind out of salvation in my opinion. Others claim that being saved absolves one's sins past, present, and future. This "Get Out of Jail Free" idea is dangerous in my opinion. Some believing in it stop seeking to better themselves and have less problem transgressing against others. They stop seeking the words of Jesus to help out their fellow man, which should be basic to all Christians.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 20:08:06 GMT
This one has a different intro and exit. Robert Blake stars....
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 19:52:01 GMT
A television series is tagged with the label “cult” by the media, advertisers, and network executives when it is considered edgy or offbeat, when it appeals to nostalgia, or when it is considered emblematic of a particular subculture. By these criteria, almost any series could be described as cult. Yet certain programs exert an uncanny power over their fans, encouraging them to immerse themselves within a fictional world.
In Cult Television leading scholars examine such shows as The X-Files; The Avengers; Doctor Who, Babylon Five; Star Trek; Xena, Warrior Princess; and Buffy the Vampire Slayer to determine the defining characteristics of cult television and map the contours of this phenomenon within the larger scope of popular culture.
Contributors: Karen Backstein; David A. Black, Seton Hall U; Mary Hammond, Open U; Nathan Hunt, U of Nottingham; Mark Jancovich; Petra Kuppers, Bryant College; Philippe Le Guern, U of Angers, France; Alan McKee; Toby Miller, New York U; Jeffrey Sconce, Northwestern U; Eva Vieth.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 14:04:12 GMT
4. The FALSE doctrine/heresy of "Once Saved, Always Saved". Among all the religious philosophies, the doctrine of eternal security is the worst that I have ever come across. It basically says that you once accept Christ you are saved forever. It means you can murder, rape and torture others after you accept Christ and you are still saved. The people who interpreted it are complete wackos. On a personal basis, I tend to respect Catholicism more because it at least puts some responsibility on people getting their acts right. Catholicism says faith alone cannot save but the faith needs to be complemented by good deeds. The Protestant religion such as the one formed by that idiot king who invented a religion because he wanted to sleep with many women doesn't get any respect from me. Calvinism and its notions of predestination actually are the polar opposite of what Jesus taught in my opinion. "Once Save Always Saved" is basically heretical but made even worse by the notion that those who will be saved are already predetermined.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 13:52:05 GMT
"Arlon: 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property.
Might you present your reasons for believing it isn't?"
[1] Because in the actual scripture Jacob has no clue about genetics. He believes that the reason for the coloring of sheep and goats is due to poles he places in front of them when they are breeding.
"People who attended inferior public schools often assume that religious people are not found at the higher levels or learning, wealth and accomplishment. It appears that is what you are doing here. It was not until after Darwin (ignoring Mendel) that your attitude developed. It is still wrong though. Notice the many surveys in other threads."
[2] I made no comments whatsoever about the education of "religious" people versus those who are not in terms of their education. I am not aware of any "attitude" that I have adopted, as my comments are only about the facts of the matter. Darwin and Mendel did independent study that ended up meshing perfectly together. "Notice the many surveys in other threads." Sorry, what is this supposed to mean? This last sentence seems to be an unrelated and aimless thought.
"How much people "understand genetics" varies rather much among the various levels of learning, wealth and accomplishment."
[3] This sentence basically says nothing and adds nothing to discussion.
"The notion that 'creationism' and 'evolution' are somehow in any competition is the result of people who understand neither religion nor science and should not be allowed to comment on either."
"I have already successfully deprived you of the delusion that religious people know less about genetics than you do. They have known much more for centuries."
You did? Where? You did nothing of the kind in this thread. [4] You have not made any case for these claims.
Arlon: 6. "Although evolution is reasonably possible with already living things, and many theists understand that, evolution does not work with non living clusters of molecules because the smaller clusters have a competitive advantage over larger ones, and many people theist and otherwise understand that."
"Consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that you are the one mistaken about anything."
Another non-answer, all you do is make a pretentious claim that I am wrong and then make no case at all for this being the case.[5] If consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that I am mistaken about this, cite one or two.
[1] No, he did not place spotted bark in front of sheep when they were breeding. He placed spotted bark in the watering troughs so that the sheep would associate spots with refreshment. Pavlov experimented with dogs and their propensity to associate one thing with another. After the sheep associated spots with refreshment they decided the spotted males were preferable. Once again you have shown that you are the one here who failed science. [2] You did indeed fail to see that religious people understood genetics long before Darwin, and still because of your incompetence fail to see it. [3] It highlights your misperception, evident throughout your comments, of the history of genetic knowledge. [4] I did here. You continue to refuse to see it. [5] All, that means including every last one, of the experiments on RNA chains show that they obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and thus do not (cannot) assemble long chains of RNA. "No, he did not place spotted bark in front of sheep when they were breeding. He placed spotted bark in the watering troughs so that the sheep would associate spots with refreshment. Pavlov experimented with dogs and their propensity to associate one thing with another. After the sheep associated spots with refreshment they decided the spotted males were preferable. Once again you have shown that you are the one here who failed science."
Genesis 30
37 So Jacob cut green branches from poplar, almond, and plane trees and peeled off some of the bark so that the branches had white stripes on them.
38 He put the ·branches in front of the flocks at the watering places. When the animals came to drink, they also mated there
39 so the flocks mated in front of the branches. Then the young that were born were streaked, speckled, or spotted.
40 Jacob separated the young animals from the others, and he made them face the streaked and dark animals in Laban’s flock. Jacob kept his animals separate from Laban’s.
41 When the stronger animals in the flock were mating, Jacob put the branches before their eyes so they would mate near the branches.
42 But when the weaker animals mated, Jacob did not put the branches there. So the animals born from the weaker animals were Laban’s, and those born from the stronger animals were Jacob’s.
43 In this way Jacob became very rich. He had large flocks, many male and female servants, camels, and donkeys.
So scripture tells that Jacob thought the branches would have a supernatural effect. They were striped so as to induce the births of striped animals.
Verse 41 has nothing at all to do with watering places, showing your interpretation to be wrong. I doubt that sheep and goats needed any reminder that water refreshes, but thanks for the loopy thought and your fumbling attempt to sound like you understand science.
"You did indeed fail to see that religious people understood genetics long before Darwin, and still because of your incompetence fail to see it." Come on, just saying "Yes you did" is not a worthy rebuttal from even a five year old.
"It highlights your misperception, evident throughout your comments, of the history of genetic knowledge."
What is evident is that my knowledge of genetics, as limited as it might be, is greater than your own. But once again you have added nothing to your rebuttal except to to make a board statement that I am wrong. So where was I wrong...specifically?
"I did here. 1. People had been breeding plants and animals for centuries before Darwin. 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property. 4. The notion that theists fail to understand genetics is false. See #1 and #2. link
You continue to refuse to see it."
Because you really have made no argument. You throw out statement about artificial selection as if they prove that does involved with it understand genetics. Just discovering by observation that the odds of getting black sheep from breeding them with other black sheep does not show much more than a superficial knowledge of genetics. You seem to think it equals that of modern scientists working in genetics. Are you serious, or just trying out a standup comedy act where your parody a creationist?
"All, that means including every last one, of the experiments on RNA chains show that they obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and thus do not (cannot) assemble long chains of RNA."
So you are a creationist. Nobody else would make this argument. But this was not even what your brought up earlier. You were talking about inorganic molecules and now you have thrown that out the window. Why, because it was not even pertinent to evolution?
I asked for citations, not your loopy attempt at describing physics. The simple answer to garbled statements such as this by creationists is to point out that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics relates to systems that are closed.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 13:20:44 GMT
Neat confluence of stories there. Evolution doing all the hard work and then God kicks in with Adam and Eve to produce the 'soul' in humans. Presumably before that they were 'soulless'? Wait! I assumed that God kicked in with the whole soul thing, right? I hope you realise that this poses more questions than it does answers about this whole God and evolution partnership. He is objectively reporting what theistic evolutionists believe and not agreeing with them. There isn't a person on this board with a better understanding of evolution than Geode now that Redruth does not post here. He has for years challenged theistic evolutionists and bettered them in past debates. Whatever happened to Redruth? She knew far more about evolution than me as she actually worked as a life scientist with genetic studies. She was very up to date.
My disagreements in the past were mainly with Young Earth Creationists, and often about the reasons that geology shows us that our planet is very old. Most Theistic Evolutionists accept the findings of evolutionary scientists and geologists about the age of our world. In discussions with YEC they usually seem to be of the same thinking as those making arguments from a non-religious point of view, especially if human evolution is not part of the topic. They will differ at that point in that most of them think evolution had a purpose, and God directed it to produce man in His own image.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 12:45:03 GMT
Those things attributed below I'm sorry that isn't obvious to you. I will address it presently. Might you present your reasons for believing it isn't? People who attended inferior public schools often assume that religious people are not found at the higher levels or learning, wealth and accomplishment. It appears that is what you are doing here. It was not until after Darwin (ignoring Mendel) that your attitude developed. It is still wrong though. Notice the many surveys in other threads. How much people "understand genetics" varies rather much among the various levels of learning, wealth and accomplishment. I have already successfully deprived you of the delusion that religious people know less about genetics than you do. They have known much more for centuries. Consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that you are the one mistaken about anything. "Arlon: 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property.
Might you present your reasons for believing it isn't?"
Because in the actual scripture Jacob has no clue about genetics. He believes that the reason for the coloring of sheep and goats is due to poles he places in front of them when they are breeding.
"People who attended inferior public schools often assume that religious people are not found at the higher levels or learning, wealth and accomplishment. It appears that is what you are doing here. It was not until after Darwin (ignoring Mendel) that your attitude developed. It is still wrong though. Notice the many surveys in other threads."
I made no comments whatsoever about the education of "religious" people versus those who are not in terms of their education. I am not aware of any "attitude" that I have adopted, as my comments are only about the facts of the matter. Darwin and Mendel did independent study that ended up meshing perfectly together. "Notice the many surveys in other threads." Sorry, what is this supposed to mean? This last sentence seems to be an unrelated and aimless thought.
"How much people "understand genetics" varies rather much among the various levels of learning, wealth and accomplishment."
This sentence basically says nothing and adds nothing to discussion.
"The notion that 'creationism' and 'evolution' are somehow in any competition is the result of people who understand neither religion nor science and should not be allowed to comment on either."
"I have already successfully deprived you of the delusion that religious people know less about genetics than you do. They have known much more for centuries."
You did? Where? You did nothing of the kind in this thread. You have not made any case for these claims.
Arlon: 6. "Although evolution is reasonably possible with already living things, and many theists understand that, evolution does not work with non living clusters of molecules because the smaller clusters have a competitive advantage over larger ones, and many people theist and otherwise understand that."
"Consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that you are the one mistaken about anything."
Another non-answer, all you do is make a pretentious claim that I am wrong and then make no case at all for this being the case. If consistent and extensive laboratory tests show that I am mistaken about this, cite one or two.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 12:13:48 GMT
I wrote: "I think most "theistic evolutionists" think that the human "body" evolved, but at some point in evolution (time of Adam and Eve) was combined with the "spirit" that did not evolve. The combination of the two creates the "soul".... " You responded: "Neat confluence of stories there. Evolution doing all the hard work and then God kicks in with Adam and Eve to produce the 'soul' in humans. Presumably before that they were 'soulless'? Wait! I assumed that God kicked in with the whole soul thing, right? I hope you realise that this poses more questions than it does answers about this whole God and evolution partnership." I then asked you about what answers were rendered by the concept and which questions it caused. You claimed that the questions I outnumbered the answers. But you ignored my request. "I was not making a case for theistic evolution. But since you appear to be an expert on both evolution and theology why don't you explain what is answered by theistic evolution and what is not answered? What questions are posed by holding to this concept?" So, my questions remain the same. In my opinion there is no need to invoke God to explain the evolution of life as revealed through scientific research. Let's get this straight. I answered your post at face value. My comments stand as to what you wrote. Although you could not know it because none of us are mind readers on here, I wrote a reply with many questions of the most logical kind, inadvertently lost it and didn't bother to rewrite the post ( the function on here for retaining unposted draft posts for some reason failed me though I tried to restitute it) after being admonished by AJ for not having put your reputation for past responses of this kind, into action when questioning you on that post. I backed down, though I though he was unfair and incorrect. We agree, so why you posted about theistic evolution in a manner that was authoritative, is anyone's guess! I have also lost posts that I have written that got lost and this is maddening. But I have found that having gone through the thought process involved in writing posts that I lose that when I redo them they take vastly less time to reconstruct. If a post took me half an hour to write, due to looking up multiple references, etc. The second attempt probably would only take a fraction of that time, perhaps 5 -10 mins. or so.
But here you have not rendered a single item or idea in support of your claim about questions and answers involved with the notion of "theistic evolution" which is confusing to me. You made such a strong and bold statement that it sounded as if the ideas were all lined up and ready to go but yet you offered nothing in support of your claim in your first reply. Now you offer ....nothing.....yet again.
I simply gave my opinion about "theistic evolution" and I don't see why you would call it authoritative. Well, perhaps to somebody that knows nothing about the subject it might have come across that way, but you certainly must know all about it since you made this authoritative comment:
"I hope you realise that this poses more questions than it does answers about this whole God and evolution partnership."
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 12, 2019 10:50:26 GMT
Doggy ....
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 11, 2019 18:34:33 GMT
Yes, my favored means is Cathay Pacific Airlines.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 11, 2019 18:31:00 GMT
Yup, pretty good, better than nothing at all
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 11, 2019 17:10:43 GMT
Those of us who are here for years have seen that time and again. And he doesn't need to demonstrate anything to a moron like you. You poor fool couldn't even see "theistic evolutionists" was put in inverted comma for a purpose. Gee AJ. Back to the insults again so soon? I guess 2020 is a long way away when you might need a friendly face in Sydney! It is a prerequisite of effective posting on a message board that you don't reply on past reputation to ensure a meaning to your post. I remember Geode, I remember a variety of things about him and I have been posting on IMDb and here for 17 years. He straight up came on strong to me on this thread when I questioned something he posted about theistic evolution. I don't appreciate it and appreciate it even less that you take up his confused posting cause. I wrote: "I think most "theistic evolutionists" think that the human "body" evolved, but at some point in evolution (time of Adam and Eve) was combined with the "spirit" that did not evolve. The combination of the two creates the "soul".... " You responded: "Neat confluence of stories there. Evolution doing all the hard work and then God kicks in with Adam and Eve to produce the 'soul' in humans. Presumably before that they were 'soulless'? Wait! I assumed that God kicked in with the whole soul thing, right? I hope you realise that this poses more questions than it does answers about this whole God and evolution partnership." I then asked you about what answers were rendered by the concept and which questions it caused. You claimed that the questions I outnumbered the answers. But you ignored my request. "I was not making a case for theistic evolution. But since you appear to be an expert on both evolution and theology why don't you explain what is answered by theistic evolution and what is not answered? What questions are posed by holding to this concept?" So, my questions remain the same. In my opinion there is no need to invoke God to explain the evolution of life as revealed through scientific research.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 11, 2019 16:59:06 GMT
He is objectively reporting what theistic evolutionists believe and not agreeing with them. There isn't a person on this board with a better understanding of evolution than Geode now that Redruth does not post here. He has for years challenged theistic evolutionists and bettered them in past debates. 1. People had been breeding plants and animals for centuries before Darwin. 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property. 4. The notion that theists fail to understand genetics is false. See #1 and #2. 5. The notion that "creationism" and "evolution" are somehow in any competition is the result of people who understand neither religion nor science and should not be allowed to comment on either. 6. Although evolution is reasonably possible with already living things, and many theists understand that, evolution does not work with non living clusters of molecules because the smaller clusters have a competitive advantage over larger ones, and many people theist and otherwise understand that. 1. People had been breeding plants and animals for centuries before Darwin. True, but what is your point by pointing this out? 2. The Bible contains a story about how Jacob while tending Laban's flocks bred them for spots because Laban had agreed the ones with spots would become Jacob's property. That is not an accurate reading of scripture, but once again what is your point in bringing this up? 4. The notion that theists fail to understand genetics is false. See #1 and #2. The understanding of genetics that humans used before relatively modern times was rudimentary and hardly on a level to understand the science behind speciation and common descent. 5. The notion that "creationism" and "evolution" are somehow in any competition is the result of people who understand neither religion nor science and should not be allowed to comment on either. If you are using the usual meaning of "creationism" as being the acceptance of all life "kinds" as having been the result of "special creation" by a divine hand at some point a few thousand years ago you are correct that there is no competition between it and evolutionary science. One is purely based upon religion and has no valid basis in science. 6. Although evolution is reasonably possible with already living things, and many theists understand that, evolution does not work with non living clusters of molecules because the smaller clusters have a competitive advantage over larger ones, and many people theist and otherwise understand that. This is not the subject of evolution, but that of abiogenesis. It sounds as if you are making an invalid claim about thermodynamics that is commonly made by creationists.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 10, 2019 20:01:57 GMT
I have found some of the reviews and analysis to be totally made up nonsense. Have not noticed anything that egregious I wish I could say the same.
|
|
|
Post by geode on Jan 10, 2019 17:06:05 GMT
Then it was premeditated murder, but more importantly, did The Giggler go down laughing? Did he? Still wondering.
|
|