BALTIMORE ? After denying Javon Thompson food and water for two days because he wouldn’t say “amen” after meals, the 1-year-old’s caretakers waited for a divine sign that their message had been heard: a resurrection.For more than a week, police say in charging documents describing the scene, the child’s lifeless body lay in the backroom of an apartment. Queen Antoinette, the 40-year-old leader of a group that called itself 1 Mind Ministries, brought in her followers and told them to pray. God, she said, would raise Javon from the dead.Instead, Javon’s body began to decompose.The boy’s mother, Ria Ramkissoon, 21, and four other people, including Trevia Williams, 21, who authorities say are members of the group face first-degree murder charges. But Ramkissoon’s mother and attorney say that she was brainwashed by a cult and acted only at the group leader’s will.Court documents describe a group that operated secretly, dressed all in white and eschewed medical care. Antoinette, also known as Toni Sloan or Toni Ellsberry, called her followers “princes” and “princesses.” And she and her followers were possessive of the children under their care.Children have been killed in similar groups for failing to follow cult teachings, said Rick A. Ross, who has studied cults for 26 years. That appears to have been the case with Javon, who was viewed as a “demon,” according to police statements.
Dawkins wasn’t the first one to point this out, but he did poignantly express that the problem with moderate religions is that it makes way for extremists. This poor child died, because the mother was conditioned by society to obey religious figures, and she picked the wrong one to obey.Of course, the mother had to be mentally unstable in the first place, but there are a LOT of mentally unstable people out there who are trained by religions to follow orders without question. This leads to some believing their children are demons.I hate death. But more than that, I hate needless death. More than that, I hate needless death of innocent children. And this, my dear friends, is why I support the Death Penalty. Fry some cult leaders, and this will stop happening, IMO.
cry4turtles:
I disagree. The will is essential in every step of the process. If at any time, one ?looses the will to (fill in the blank),? the entire endeavor (dieting, fighting addiction, etc.) grinds to a halt.
Again, I disagree. Sure, the rewards are the reinforcements, but as I said, if at any point in the process the will is lost, then so is the effort. Yes, it is the weak link in the chain, but it is an inextricable component of every link. The will is the one constant and necessary ingredient; the impetus; the root cause; the self. It is our spiritual essence; the means by which we choose our destinies. It is who and what we are; by it we either build or erode our character and integrity?and it is irrefutably immaterial?which, by definition, makes it separate and distinct from our physical selves.
jcc:
Pardon, but it isn’t separate & distinct. You can’t prove that it exists independently of the physical. You can’t even prove that it survives death. So all this namby-pamby about ‘transcendent values’ (hey, if you think, that proves gawd!) is a leap of…faith that there’s a supernatural cause.
Cogitation & creation aren’t proofs of anything except existence.
Ok Krys,
And you can?t prove that it doesn?t exist independently of the physical. If it is a manifestation of the physical then that implies to me a physical source. Hmmm, oh yeah, and hemispherectomies don?t help your cause because it doesn?t matter which hemisphere is removed?the will remains. For your assertion that it doesn?t exist independently of the physical to hold water, I?d say the burden of proof is on you to show that the will is not immaterial.
And congratulations on kicking the meth thing.
JCC should give me an operational definition of the “soul” because nobody here has any real idea of what he is blathering about.
He should also get off the stupid “will” thing. You can’t give an operational definition of that nonsensical word either.
Don’t get sucked into these pointless nonsensical discussions with theists about how many fairies can fit on the point of a needle. Demand that they give an operational definition of “fairy” first.
Really? Well, ok, if you?re unable to look the words up then here ya go; from the Meriam-Webster?s online dictionary:
soul : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life (emphasis mine).
And again, (don?t worry, I don?t mind doin? the foot work for ya):
will [noun] 1 : DESIRE, WISH: as a : DISPOSITION, INCLINATION b : APPETITE, PASSION c : CHOICE, DETERMINATION
2 a : something desired; especially : a choice or determination of one having authority or power
3 : the act, process, or experience of willing : VOLITION
4 a : mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending b : a disposition to act according to principles or ends
And you might find this next definition particularly useful for our discussion:
5 : the power of control over one?s own actions or emotions
Ok, there, it?s done. So does this mean that you can?t debate the existence of these entities simply because the ?operational? definitions aren?t to your liking, or exceed your comprehension? If so, then that must mean that you also can?t debate the particulars of what a definitive taxonomical entity is due to our inability to exhaustively define what constitutes a species?despite the fact that they (like the soul and will) objectively exist, right?
I got a little over zealous and committed a Freudian slip by including ?soul? along with ?will? in my last parenthetical phrase. Despite my arguing for it?s existence, if I am to be objective here since I cannot offer irrefutable evidence to support that assertion then I also cannot claim that it (the soul) objectively exists. My apologies.
JCC
Here is one more thing for you to look up. Look up “operational definition”. Kind’a makes all your “foot work” look more like a foot in a mouth. Doesn’t it?
jcc:
Nor do I have to. There’s no proof that it does. Ergo, by the transitive process, the light switch is hit, the light goes off.
Oh, & the translation of operational definition is as follows:
“An operational definition is a showing of something?such as a variable, term, or object?in terms of the specific process or set of validation tests used to determine its presence and quantity. Properties described in this manner must be publicly accessible so that persons other than the definer can independently measure or test for them at will. An operational definition is generally designed to model a conceptual definition.”
So, no, What is right & you were off by a country mile.
There’s hope for you yet.
JCC
You seem to lack a basic understanding of what definitions are. This line for exemplifies this:
No. It means that I want you to give me said operational definitions. Then using your definitions (assuming they are indeed operational) we may proceed. At some point I may point out to you that your operational definition (provided you give me one) may not be particularly useful. We will see.
It appears that you do not seem to grasp what definitions of any type are (let alone operational ones). They are neither “right” nor “wrong”. They are what is given and they are either useful or not. They provide a precision in reasoning. For how can one understand another’s premises without understanding those definitions of the words or symbols used in those premises. Applying logic to nebulous or ill-defined premises is futile.
are (of any type) and how they are important in establishing premises. This makes rational argument with you almost futile.
I’m not sure how to start. I’m moved to answer, but somehow the thread turned from whether a cult member murdered a child, and what the appropriate penalty should be, to willpower and diets and how it connects with your soul? Am I reading that right?
Okay, I’m game. Let’s talk WILL. Narcotics Anonymous told me needed to admit, as a first step that I was powerless over my addiction. I was not an ideal newbie. I told them that if that were true I should kill myself and stop wasting time, but I didn’t believe that, otherwise I wouldn’t have been seeking a way out. The next step was to turn my addiction over to the higher power (which I was free to define as I wished, but he needed to be one who gave a shit if I lived or died). Since no such thing existed, I wondered why the hell I should sit through meetings and pretend to relate to a bunch of people who had desparately traded, as a last ditch stand, one crutch for another.
So I went home and decided to quit two things. One, a drug habit that threatened my family, and my life, and Two, any crutch to replace it with that would prevent me from going back to a real normal life. And that is what I did.
That is “WILL”.
Now, let’s talk about “Soul”. I will politely invite JCC to go back to his books and study the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic translations to the word “soul”. When god breathed life into him, Adam became a living “soul”. Nowhere in new or old testimate is a soul referred to as seperate from the body that animates it. Death of the body is the end of the soul, unless you’re a Pharasee, at least until the Catholic Church came on the scene.
Now enough about souls. Can we talk about something relevent?
NeoWolfe
What,
Apparently some people believe definitions to be opinions…
Atheon
Some people are very very confused.
definitions are opinions of the person defining. And both of you are pissing in a whirl wind.
This is not an insult, it’s a friendly wake up call.
NeoWolfe
Neowolfe
They are most certainly not. Give me an example and I will help you clear up your very fogging thinking.
neowolfe,
That is a terrifying statement. Definitions, both operational definitions and the far more common abstract definitions, are a basic requirement of communication.
I think what you’re talking about here is the act of altering definitions for the purpose of introducing a bias into the conversation or confusing the other party. “Cultspeak” is one term for this, though I have a feeling there is a better word out there somewhere. This kind of abuse of language is common amongst cults (Scientology is infamous for it, but I’ve yet to find a religion that is completely innocent of it). However, even my use of the word “cult” is an example of this sort of behavior since “cult” is not a strongly defined word (compare to the noun form of “hammer” which every English speaker should understand to mean the same thing).
An example would be the way jcc has used “atheist” in the past. He once told me that atheists are people who believe that no God exists. This is contrary to common dictionary definitions so it worked to shut down communication somewhat. I’m not sure if he’s still guilty of this, this is a busy time of year for the toy industry so I haven’t been around much.
Another example that I’ve seen some theists use is to re-define “love” so that it requires God as its source. Thus the statement “atheists cannot feel love” makes perfect sense to them but is completely bewildering to people who stick to the common definition. Groups tend to provide definitions like this for their followers in order to strengthen the feeling of belonging to the group. Within the group this serves to shut down communication with outsiders and is a useful tool to protect members of the group from outside ideas (hence the pejorative term “cultspeak”).
So when a person defines a word it certainly does give everyone some insight into their opinion, but the definition itself is not actually an opinion. It’s no more an opinion than defining a=5 within the context of an algebra problem.
okay, guys, without getting into connotation and denotations, let me give you an example. Find a Webster’s Dictionary dated 1950 or before. Then look up the word “picturesque” it meant ordinary, plain, unremarkable. Then look it up in a new dictionary. The definition has done a one eighty.
And if you want to define “atheists” and theorize they are incapable of love, you’ve missed a huge point. Love is a trick nature plays on you to propogate the species. And I still think you guys are pissing in a whirlwind.
NeoWolfe
Loki’s wager. The jury is in.
Neowolfe is a jackass.
& I think s/he should just piss off, until this cub can actually think & talk like an intelligent being.
Neowolfe
You are isolating yourself with your obfuscation.