Mustard Seed
New member
ThePhy said:
We are all proselytizing. My dogmas are just a bit easier to define and point out.
Mooning Jupiter
- Thread starter ThePhy
- Start date
- Status
We are all proselytizing. My dogmas are just a bit easier to define and point out.
Mustard Seed
New member
koban said:
He seems to be one of the dogmaticaly non-dogmatic. Those who hold the dogma that any dogma is not, or can not be, correct. There are other demi-dogmas any scientist must hold to. The very scientific process demands assumptions be made about the system being studied. This is required since our capacities make us inable to simultaniously account for every possible factor that does or might exist.
The whole "Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd." notion that comes from the likes of Voltaire. They seem rather certain that their assessment of certainty's absurdity is certain. Hence the dogmaticaly non-dogmatic label.
The Berean
Well-known member
ThePhy got banned?! Wow.
Mustard Seed
New member
The Berean said:
That's what I say. I guess if I say it too much they'll ban me too.
servent101
New member
mooning Jupiter - well I know somthing about mooning - that if the good Arabs want to separate themselves from the bad Arabs - they just have to moon the American troops.
That's how you separate the fundies from the men.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
That's how you separate the fundies from the men.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Mustard Seed
New member
servent101 said:
A fundie then is someone who will not voluntarily and publicly expose their unshielded behind???
I thought fundies were the ones that would do anything to exert their "view" upon the masses. Though that would throw us westerner infidels for a loop. I don't know if the world would know how to react to such a display. On the tangent of terrorism, that scene would just terrify me.
*#*#*#
Further off the topic.
I was studying about the likes of the subway bombers. Apparently their creed gets rather Machevelian when they decide to sacrifice themselves for their god. They no longer are condemned for anything HAREM (that's Arabic for 'forbidden' i.e. other man's woman/women, porn, pork, dogs, smoking, drinking, any illicit drugs, any conceivable act). That's how that teacher for disabled students was so not a suspect. They are given a carte blanche so long as they end it off with a shared violent death with the 'infidels'.
Extreemly disturbing.
I don't find Kamakazie pilots honorable, but at least they had the aim of military targets and they didn't seek to do it behind any shroud. They kept a massive swath of dignity when compared to a man that pretends to be nice and a teacher to handicapped children, for an extended period of time, and then goes out and blows away a portion of the community.
servent101
New member
Mustard Seel
All in all most people are carrying around some "baggage" and in the world in which we live few talk about their "beliefs" and the actions that come out of them. All in all I have found when people articulate something - their minds go with the literal meaning of the words they use - and if there are errors in their articulation that their concepts and actions snowball into some sort of "deranged behavior". I do support America in the fight on terrorism, so please do not get me wrong, but I think America needs to take some public responsibility for creating this whole mess in the first place - as it seems the core group of terrorists now were all "influenced" or "indoctrinated" to some pretty strange ideas when they were fighting in Afghanistan against the Russians. If America did do this, take some public responsibility for the "misuse" of religious dogma in Afghanistan, possibly more people would see that what has been interpreted as "sacrifice themselves for their god" is meant to live in Peace, and not to repay evil for evil, but in an honest and peaceful method of stating your truth, be willing to die for your beliefs without retaliating in a destructive way towards your oppressors.
. As far as fooling people in jobs such as you say
With Christ's Love
Servent101
All in all most people are carrying around some "baggage" and in the world in which we live few talk about their "beliefs" and the actions that come out of them. All in all I have found when people articulate something - their minds go with the literal meaning of the words they use - and if there are errors in their articulation that their concepts and actions snowball into some sort of "deranged behavior". I do support America in the fight on terrorism, so please do not get me wrong, but I think America needs to take some public responsibility for creating this whole mess in the first place - as it seems the core group of terrorists now were all "influenced" or "indoctrinated" to some pretty strange ideas when they were fighting in Afghanistan against the Russians. If America did do this, take some public responsibility for the "misuse" of religious dogma in Afghanistan, possibly more people would see that what has been interpreted as "sacrifice themselves for their god" is meant to live in Peace, and not to repay evil for evil, but in an honest and peaceful method of stating your truth, be willing to die for your beliefs without retaliating in a destructive way towards your oppressors.
. As far as fooling people in jobs such as you say
There are all sorts of people who are "honestly" deranged, and as I said earlier, were really not encouraging people to talk about what it is they think, or to evaluate how what they think and want - the process of articulation - it's involvement. As much as terrorist whacko theology effects the Middle East - this lack of incentive in the West to introspect - a result of consumerism I suspect, is making the world unsafe on both sides.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Mustard Seed
New member
servent101 said:
America didn't do that. America was supporting an enemy of our (at the time) greater enemy. Aside from God we don't have the great convenience of only obtaining eternaly flawless allies. We have to preserve our liberty and it's future for our posterity. To demand the abandonement of all pragmatic alliances to keep us free from guilt of other people's actions is absured. It seems idealistic to an impossible extreem. Like "environmentalists" who seem to think our existance is only possible if we can manage it without infringing on anything else,, at all, in the totality of our environemnt.
I do not disagree with the fault that many westerners have of either ignorance, apathy, or both, with regard to the full scale of the effects of all their actions but I do not see this as excusing, or rendering active opposition of the "Islamic" extreemists as immoral or unacceptable or unefective. Are there other things western civilization needs to do to survive in the future. Certainly! Becoming more cognigent of our actions and their effects on both micro and macro scales is one of several items I believe we need to begin to do.
I hold the dogma that ALL humans, at some point in their existance (baring some rare mental illness, the exception rather than the rule) know that doing things such as suicide bombers do is inherently wrong. Why else do so many drug themselves up or work so hard at becoming desensitized?
Anywho. In conjunction with the bannings I've totaly veered this thread off topic.
servent101
New member
Mustard Seed
How did you get this...
The statement I made was to my thinking superb - one could reach what they call heaven by being peaceful, and not fighting to show that their "religion" is built on peace... if they died fighting for peace in a peaceful way... this is the glory of all glories - marterdom does not have to be by blowing oneself up in a war... but they do not preach that - why? - well I suspect that the Americans probably influenced their religion and culture to make soldiers for fighting in Afganistan against the Russians.
So anyways - if the Americans admitted that they influenced the Muslim community - even if they did not... if they lied and said they did contribute to the "aspect of twisting the Muslim Faith" - this would strike a real blow to terrorists - that they might decide to look again at their Scriptuers and realize the battle in which to be martyred is not a military battle, but one where one is living at peace with his or her enimies, and is trying to gently persuade them of what is "true"... and while in the process he or she is killed.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
How did you get this...
from what I posted?
The statement I made was to my thinking superb - one could reach what they call heaven by being peaceful, and not fighting to show that their "religion" is built on peace... if they died fighting for peace in a peaceful way... this is the glory of all glories - marterdom does not have to be by blowing oneself up in a war... but they do not preach that - why? - well I suspect that the Americans probably influenced their religion and culture to make soldiers for fighting in Afganistan against the Russians.
So anyways - if the Americans admitted that they influenced the Muslim community - even if they did not... if they lied and said they did contribute to the "aspect of twisting the Muslim Faith" - this would strike a real blow to terrorists - that they might decide to look again at their Scriptuers and realize the battle in which to be martyred is not a military battle, but one where one is living at peace with his or her enimies, and is trying to gently persuade them of what is "true"... and while in the process he or she is killed.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Mustard Seed
New member
servent101 said:
From this part--
We did not misuse religious dogma. We provided aid to someone that was fighting a common enemy. To my knowledge we did not send them out suicide bombing themselves in the middle of Russia's civilian population. We simply gave aid to a military organization that was fighting a cause advantageous to the containment of communism.
That is my point. If you were to pay a man for food that he had that you needed to go on living and that man took that money and used it to train himself, through the institution that supported the dogma(s) he held, to go out and later do horrible things to other people are you then guilty for having paid that man for food when you didn't know exactly what chaos that transaction would support in the long term? We can't do bussiness with people that are perfect and have no chance in the future of taking the spoils of various transactions we've had with them and using those spoils for something very very bad. You seem to say that we need to take some blame for having had these collaberations. Would you then say we should also take responsibility for transactions we didn't take that might have saved lives or kept people out of a bondage far worse than any they currently experience? What if we'd left them alone? Would you then criticize the US for sitting by while the USSR dominated the entire globe in a globalized version of medevil European serdom? It's easy to criticize any actons taken by our government at any point because we all think that things could have gone better. But no one offers alternatives. Hindsight's 50/50 untill you have to actually go back and decide what to change and then watch the consequences unfold. People scoff at the idea of the USSR taking over the world but it could have really happened. Then in all likelyhood we would be living in something like the Russians (and most of the world) endured for centuries under the iron fist of the Mongols. Tell me what you would have done differently and what you think the most likely outcome would have been. That's my problem with statements like the one you made. It's like many of us seeing the decisions our parents make at times. It's easy to say they messed up, that they really botched it, but then if we were really put in their shoes with only the knowledge they or we had at that time could we guarentee that our outcome would have been that different or better?
I haven't seen the movie the Butterfly Effect but the plot, as I understand it, goes along similar lines. While I'm certain we could do some things better than what we did if we could go back and do it all over again we often forget the complecations and differing circumstances that would ensue as the result of our initial corrections and changes.
A most interesting hypothesis. Beyond the fact that I think lying is ALWAYS wrong (the only exception would be if God or his true servent specificaly commanded me to do it, and then I would hope that I would only follow that command so far as I'd been authorized too). You have the problem of perpetual distrust of us. Any claim we made that they didn't agree with, even if you could fabricate a good lie with genuine looking phony evidence and even if you could get key people on their side to go in with you uniequivocably on the lie, would be dismissed. These people, after all, are quite open to theories ranging from the US letting them attack the US to the Israeli influenced US government setting the whole thing up just so we could pick on the Muslims of the world and steal their oil or whatever else they happen to be living around. They are plenty ready to accept absured theories, so long as it doesn't paint them as either the bad guy or as fools. And the case with your setup, assuming it's a lie, would have them apearing as fools.
So then if we did do it. For us to take the blame I personaly would like to see the evidence. Otherwise I see no problem with accepting my current understanding that we simply made an alliance of convenience to counter what we saw, at the time, as being the greatest threat to those things that we hold in some of the highest esteem.
Now you could go on about a government cover up but I've seen too many government cover-ups exposed with evidence comming in from all over- that I'd be a reaaaaaaaaly tough sell on a theory with no real evidence.
servent101
New member
Mustard Seed
This would be the New Military - if we are to ever have a planet that is fit for real men and women to live in - security by sharing what is wise and coherent behavioiur - by choice, but this also means to expend energy on what is an "informed choice".
Guns work as a last resort - and we need them, but really I think the evidence is there that we give up too easily on finding a solution, and we have infected the Arab world with our shoot from the hip reactions.
With Christ's Love
servent101
- well it is obvious to most people that the military does not train people to go out and gently persuade people to live good lives... I may be wrong, and possibly if I suggest the idea - that the military should employ people who persuade "societyies" to follow their religious doctrine more in light of what I said -
This would be the New Military - if we are to ever have a planet that is fit for real men and women to live in - security by sharing what is wise and coherent behavioiur - by choice, but this also means to expend energy on what is an "informed choice".
Guns work as a last resort - and we need them, but really I think the evidence is there that we give up too easily on finding a solution, and we have infected the Arab world with our shoot from the hip reactions.
With Christ's Love
servent101
Mustard Seed
New member
servent101 said:
The military, to my knowledge, did not go out to specificaly promote any doctrine or dogma among the Afgan fighters. They simply supplied them with supplies necesary to fighting a modern war against the Russians. I'm fully aware that militaries are not warm fuzzying their way into victory. War, and those who are profesionals at it, by necesity have to take what their dealt. What specificaly would you have wanted to see the US to do that would have us free from the guilt you claim we share through our employment of the Afgan fighters? Give us an alternative action that would have been, in your view, the correct action. Whatever it is tell us. Should we have never gotten involved?
We often do not have the great fortune of having the opportunity to take all acts concerning national security to all of our many sages. To make an "informed choice" beyond instituting a largely inherently inflexible general policy is just not doable. I believe you are living in a land of make believe when it comes to your New Army. Yes we need to know and understand the best we can what is occuring and what is the moral highground so that we can either stay there or get back to it as soon as possible if we're found to be off of it. But to take the impractical utopian view that we can somehow have a "New Army" that will somehow greatly lessen or eliminate the strange coincidences, like that of the path of our one time ally, now enemy, the Afgan fighters, is wrong headed.
I think you are living outside the realities of a timeline we cannot slow down or stop. There's not time to indefenetly discuss many of the actions that must be taken in some commitee. The very nature of war, terrorism, intellegence, counter intellegence and nearly all aspects connected with national security is that time is often the most scarce resource. We shoot from the hip precisly because, to do it any slower could not merely delay it but render any shooting on our part a non-existant option.
servent101
New member
Mustard seed
I am ready to give up - if I say this, you say that, if I say something - you take it to it's most ridiculous end - then you say that that end is not of any use... You seem to think that if you take what other people say and twist it around, that this does not effect most people - (collective consciousness) and in so twisting these very decent and reasonable ideas - you in a way help to create that behavior in the general populous.
What you say is not anything except rhetoric - and I think if you know anything at all - you know what America did - in the Gulf War, that every other country said NO - and as far as what America did - it was an illegal invasion in which thousands of innocent people died - hundreds of thousands to be more precise... and to top it all off American leaders are still saying what they did is right. The President does not know how many people have died as a direct or indirect result of this invasion - and possibly he may never know... just as you do not know the number of people killed by pollution from various oil fired contraptions - but if you did, so what, your not the one living in a utopia - your the one doing the head in the sand trick.
What I would of done to stop terrorism was to start a war against keeping environmentally friendly technology off the shelf - just stop paying the Middle East for their oil - find another source, find ways of being more thrifty. This would not be in retaliation against the Middle East - it would be to stop our own people from dying of various diseases from smog. All in all I have no idea of what is true and what is false - but I do hear that the American Troops now have official permission to torture prisoners - which is exactly why they said they started the war against Saddam.
Anyways - I do not know what the truth is, but if I had to guess if it were a contest to see who could kill more people - Oil pollution kills hundreds of thousands more people than the Gulf war... but the same side is working the same war - and the only people able to stay free of the mess are living in "clean environments" supporting peaceful means to end conflict.
As for you - it seems whatever I say, you will just take the opposite view of what I say once you take it to it's most ridiculous end. - so if there is a cold war between us - well who’s fault is it?
With Christ's Love
Servent101
I am ready to give up - if I say this, you say that, if I say something - you take it to it's most ridiculous end - then you say that that end is not of any use... You seem to think that if you take what other people say and twist it around, that this does not effect most people - (collective consciousness) and in so twisting these very decent and reasonable ideas - you in a way help to create that behavior in the general populous.
What you say is not anything except rhetoric - and I think if you know anything at all - you know what America did - in the Gulf War, that every other country said NO - and as far as what America did - it was an illegal invasion in which thousands of innocent people died - hundreds of thousands to be more precise... and to top it all off American leaders are still saying what they did is right. The President does not know how many people have died as a direct or indirect result of this invasion - and possibly he may never know... just as you do not know the number of people killed by pollution from various oil fired contraptions - but if you did, so what, your not the one living in a utopia - your the one doing the head in the sand trick.
What I would of done to stop terrorism was to start a war against keeping environmentally friendly technology off the shelf - just stop paying the Middle East for their oil - find another source, find ways of being more thrifty. This would not be in retaliation against the Middle East - it would be to stop our own people from dying of various diseases from smog. All in all I have no idea of what is true and what is false - but I do hear that the American Troops now have official permission to torture prisoners - which is exactly why they said they started the war against Saddam.
Anyways - I do not know what the truth is, but if I had to guess if it were a contest to see who could kill more people - Oil pollution kills hundreds of thousands more people than the Gulf war... but the same side is working the same war - and the only people able to stay free of the mess are living in "clean environments" supporting peaceful means to end conflict.
As for you - it seems whatever I say, you will just take the opposite view of what I say once you take it to it's most ridiculous end. - so if there is a cold war between us - well who’s fault is it?
With Christ's Love
Servent101
Addendum to the points made in the opening post of this thread.
I identified two occasions on which Bob spoke about Io and it’s volcanism as proof of recent creation – once in 2001 and then again in 2003. But I have come across something pertinent that dates from an earlier time. In 1998 Bob recorded the “Genesis – Creation” set of tapes. On the back side of the 3rd tape, Bob mentions an astronomy text that he had recently read. Here is the reason he says he read it (this is about 1.5 minutes into the recording):
But then I began to wonder – so I went to my bookshelf, and guess what? I have that same text. Bob didn’t say this, but the text is just an introduction to astronomy text. Not exactly advanced stuff. But even more interesting, and directly relevant to the subject of this thread, is this excerpt from the book:
I identified two occasions on which Bob spoke about Io and it’s volcanism as proof of recent creation – once in 2001 and then again in 2003. But I have come across something pertinent that dates from an earlier time. In 1998 Bob recorded the “Genesis – Creation” set of tapes. On the back side of the 3rd tape, Bob mentions an astronomy text that he had recently read. Here is the reason he says he read it (this is about 1.5 minutes into the recording):
When I heard him make that statement, I was struck by the inference that just reading an astronomy text would make Bob enough of an authority to defend the ideas he wanted to talk about in astronomy. Maybe he is one of those prodigies that doesn’t need more than a single reading of a book to master a subject – no need for discussions with the Professor, no need to work the exercises or take a test to measure your comprehension.
But then I began to wonder – so I went to my bookshelf, and guess what? I have that same text. Bob didn’t say this, but the text is just an introduction to astronomy text. Not exactly advanced stuff. But even more interesting, and directly relevant to the subject of this thread, is this excerpt from the book:
So it seems that Bob’s use of that astronomy text to come up to speed on the subject didn’t quite do the job. On the assumption that Bob still had that astronomy in his personal library, or could get it from a public library, I wonder why he didn’t consult it in 2001 or 2003 to see if the Io heating was less mysterious than he portrayed it to be? He extracted the small amount of information from the book that he wanted to discuss in the “Genesis – Creation” lectures (and even that was seriously misrepresented by Bob – but that is for another thread), but didn’t consult it (or ignored what it said) about Io’s heat. And then he lectures on science????
From Yorzhik:
1) Instead of “would admit”, he “did admit” it, both here and on the medium on which he spread the misinformation - his radio program.
2) Explain why he gives out misinformation that is rather trivially disproved by consulting some science literature.
I would be more impressed if:
1) Instead of “would admit”, he “did admit” it, both here and on the medium on which he spread the misinformation - his radio program.
2) Explain why he gives out misinformation that is rather trivially disproved by consulting some science literature.
In another thread Yorzhik recently made a claim that more properly belongs in this thread. He claimed that in spite of this thread’s demonstration that Io’s heat is not evidence for recent creation, yet
I invite Yorzhik to supply the specific arguments or evidence or data that support his contention.
I'll ask him. But it will probably only be on the radio show since he doesn't really post here much.ThePhy said:
This is a bit reckless of you. It would only be misinformation in the context you are claiming if he refuses to take the new information into consideration.ThePhy said:
- Status