He Lives In You- The Lion King II (lyrics)

Continuing on with the Lion King theme, I decided to start on songs from The Lion King 2. “The film centers around Simba and Nala’s daughter, Kiara, who fall…

Rifkin (He Lives In You) sheet music is available for downloading in digital format.

The Lion King: Rhythm of the Pride Lands — “He lives in you”

Lyrics: (Chant:) Ingonyama nengw’ enamabala [“Here is a lion and a tiger”] Night And the spirit of life Calling (Chant:) Oh, oh, iyo Mamela [“Listen”] Oh, oh…

What is the name of a movie that is about a man and his two robots in space? In this movie, a man lives in a spaceship with two robots, i think it could be from the 70’s. During the movie, the two robots (also being his bestfreinds,) end up dying, leaving him into a life of solitude and eventual insanity. What is the name of this movie?

Rifkin (He Lives In You) sheet music is available for downloading in digital format.

Silent Running (1972)starring Bruce Dern, Cliff Potts, Ron Rifkin, Jesse VintIMDb synopsis:Freeman Lowell looks after plants in giant space greenhouses. Back on Earth, all the trees have long vanished, so Lowell puts a lot of heart into his work. When orders are received to destroy the greenhouses, Lowell can’t go through with it and cannot persuade his three colleagues to help him save the plants, so he makes other arrangements. Eventually, accompanied by only three robots, he ponders the fate of his last pocket of nature.Here are the movie trailer and Part 1 on YouTube:youtube.com/watch?v=TckJBvl_uT0youtube.com/watch?v=oani3-RDvHw&feature=related

anyone know any psychologist writers who were optimistic rather than pessimistic about the human condition? I Want someone who challenges the notion that each and every one of us is, at the core of our biology, an autonomous agent and a self-centered and materialistic being as the enlightenment thinkers thought. I know about jeremy rifkin, looking for more.
Me! I’ve written a book called “Maunder Minimum” about my life journey towards my own personal philosopy. I’d be happy to email it to you if you want! If so, let me have your email.

Try some of the Human Potential movement people like Fritz Perls, Carl Rogers, Alan Watts, or Viktor Frankl. They used Maslow’s hierarchy as a basis for ideas about people living joyous, creative lives. Some Jungian ideas might be what you are looking for; for earlier ideas you can look at Jean-Jacques Rousseau and some of the Romantic philosophers a nd writers like Goethe.

What is the point of calling it 200 year sentence in prison? I don’t think anyone at this day and age could live that long but i’ve seen repeated sentences of 100 years or more (like Joel Rifkin). Does the 100+ year sentence just count as a life sentence? Because if so, why don’t they just call it a life sentence? I don’t see the need to add a specific number.
well i think 200 year sentences are to be fair. double murder leads to two life sentences to provide justice/closure for the victims families. nothing to do with the lifetime of a person.

Well a life sentence is given when you are supposed to stay in jail until you die.200 year sentences is just a group of other convictions that added up th the 200 year sentence, but is not bad enough to be a life sentence, even though you are now going to live past 200 years. So yeah..Its like this one person who got a 35,000 year sentence, but it wasn’t considered a “life” sentence, even though it is.

to express how bad the crime is and make sure that the criminal will die in prison. it would be unprofessional not to put an exact number on it.

I reside in the most corrupt state in the country and things are so bad here thatall the prisons are overloaded with prisoners. Because of the overcrowding allthe prisoners are only required to spend 25% of their time in prison. For a 200year sentence they would only be there 25 years.

it’s a legal technicality, if you get a “life” sentence you can ask later for a potential release date for parole according to your behavior and remorse(easily faked) with a 200 year sentence even with time off you will still die in jail, it’s one of the reasons our legal system is failing and was brought in after the death penalty was abolished in many states

There are two types of “life” sentence – a “life” sentence that has an expiration date, and one that means that the next time you get out of prison, it will be in a box.California has determined that a “life” sentence is considered to be the “majority of a useful adult lifetime” – 25 years. If you are convicted of a crime and given a “life” sentence, you actually have a 25 year sentence.With laws regarding parole, for a first offender, you can be paroled from a sentence after serving 1/3 of it – or in this case, 8.3 years. For a repeat offender, you can be paroled out after serving 1/2 of the sentence. This means that if a person is convicted of murder and is sentenced to “life” – they can be walking the streets as a parolee after just over 8 years. If they then murder three people, they can be sentenced to THREE “life” sentences, and THEN only serve 12 years of each one (and then, only if the sentences are consecutive).With a 200 year sentence, you can be paroled out after serving only 66 years, so it is feasible that you can walk out of prison as a free person. just not likely.Other states (like Texas) have laws that say that if you get consecutive sentences (serve one punishment, THEN start the next one), you must serve the ENTIRE first sentence before you can be paroled from the second. This is what gave the legendary Judge Roy Bean his famous “100 years and a day” sentences for convictions of two crimes (like murder and horse theft). The convict would have to serve 100 full years before they could hope to be paroled out at 1/3 into that last day. Effectively it was a life sentence.Other states have “Mandatory Life” sentences, which means that you will never get out of prison as anything other than a corpse.

Why don’t Christians realize that “Darwinism” doesn’t exist? Darwins original theory has been added upon and revised many times over the years. And that’s not a bad thing. It’s only made the truth a whole lot clearer.
It’s just an attempt to bring science down to the level of religion, because they no they can’t raise their religion to the level of science.

They haven’t realized that donkeys don’t talk occasionally yet. I wouldn’t worry about the advanced concepts.

As a Christian, I am not threatened by theories that attempt to explain how God created the earth. The truth of the matter is that we will never fully understand. In 1000 years, people will laugh at our “theory of evolution” in the same way that we now look back and laugh that people actually believed the earth was flat.

Because it’s the philosophical results of a Darwinian based viewpoint that Christians are concerned about since it relates to how a person views the possibility of an eternal destiny awaiting us after we leave this life.icr.org/article/455/(excerpt.The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism—the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.4Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism.Another way of saying “religion” is “worldview,” the whole of reality. The evolutionary worldview applies not only to the evolution of life, but even to that of the entire universe. In the realm of cosmic evolution, our naturalistic scientists depart even further from experimental science than life scientists do, manufacturing a variety of evolutionary cosmologies from esoteric mathematics and metaphysical speculation. Socialist Jeremy Rifkin has commented on this remarkable game. Cosmologies are made up of small snippets of physical reality that have been remodeled by society into vast cosmic deceptions.9They must believe in evolution, therefore, in spite of all the evidence, not because of it. And speaking of deceptions, note the following remarkable statement. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated commitment to materialism. . . . we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.10The author of this frank statement is Richard Lewontin of Harvard. Since evolution is not a laboratory science, there is no way to test its validity, so all sorts of justso stories are contrived to adorn the textbooks. But that doesn’t make them true! An evolutionist reviewing a recent book by another (but more critical) evolutionist, says: We cannot identify ancestors or “missing links,” and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.11A fascinatingly honest admission by a physicist indicates the passionate commitment of establishment scientists to naturalism.

It’s not Christians, it’s the fringe of Christianity that’s the problem Most of the fringe are in the USA but the infection in other countries has been spreading for decades. While it’s not true even of all the fringe, you will find that they define “Christian” as only those who believe pretty much like they do. That excludes Roman Catholics, Anglicans / Episcopalians, and most Lutherans, Methodists and many other mainstream sects who are defined by the fringe as not being Christians. I don’t know what they’d make of the Russian, Greek or Serbian Orthodox Church, let alone the Coptic Church, but most of them are hardly aware that such churches exist. So on a global basis, these anti-evolutionary believers actually form the minority of Christians but are among the most noisy. Other characteristics are that their pastors often do not have a traditional theological education and to be quite blunt, the congregations are predominantly drawn from the less well educated and less “intelligent” of a population. Broadly speaking, you will not find their churches in the central districts of most larger towns (at least in Australia) they are usually in the outskirts in lower class suburbs. Or they are active in rural communities which have been losing their best and brightest to the regional larger cities, state and national capitals for generations. (I work in a city in a moderately “good” job and virtually all the workers at my level come from smaller towns and cities.) Most of the fringe have no clear idea what evolution, species, mutation etc. actually are, they only have the misinformation that is fed to them by organisations like the ICR quoted by Martin S, or by Answers in Genesis or the Discovery Institute, which mostly exist as parasites on the fringe. They have been told that evolution largely depends on examination of fossils, so they spend a great deal of energy in trying to discredit that. The fact that Darwin and Wallace based their work on comparison of existing species escapes them, and only a very few have woken up to the fact that the science of evolution has been based on genetics for more than a lifetime. Given the level of cultivated ignorance, expecting them to make a distinction between Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium etc is futile.