The Extraluminal Transmission Systems of Tesla and Alexanderson by Eric Dollard

The Secret of Tesla's Power Magnification

Energetic Forum  

Go Back   Energetic Forum > Energetic Forum Discussion > Renewable Energy
Homepage Energetic Science Ministries Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2014, 04:36 AM
mbrownn mbrownn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,296
Its very interesting how this thread has evolved, starting out with the rule of Law or not and switching over to a real and genuine religious discussion. This is not accidental nor is it planned. Let me explain.

To have a functioning society there has to be actions that are considered beneficial to society, there are also actions that would be detrimental. The rule of law was intended to make it clear to people what would be accepted and what wouldn't be for that particular society. If you don't like one particular society then you have three choices. Go along with it and keep your mouth shut, change it from within, or leave. Of course the the other alternative is war but I don't consider that a choice as it is force.

Religions have served the same function as rule of law, as far as society building is concerned, and so it is obvious that the two are interchangeable to some extent. The origin of both these systems occurred at the same time which was when way back in the time of cave men and no one can say exactly who did it or where. Of course there were leaders (whether chosen or imposed) who had great success with one or another of these systems, and so these leaders reputations spread.

Some of these leaders considered themselves above and beyond these boundaries that the society operated under. Whether it is true or not that they were special, whether reptilian, alien or something else, they were considered gods. Many of the leaders proclaimed themselves to be gods.

At this point your probably going to say I am a Darwinist non believer, but these are the facts, to the best of our knowledge, according to historical record. From my point of view, it is possible that these leaders could have been special in any of the ways I have just described, but we don't have any evidence one way or another. So it could be humans, aliens, reptiles or god(s) we just don't know. The same open mind also puts some of Darwin's work into question too.

Talking of scripture, be it of any domination, these same stories tend to be a part of it, for example we have Gin, Nephilim, demons or whatever. I suggest you do your own research into this. Do not accept any particular interpretation and question everything. Draw your own conclusions. It will take you into some dark, weird and wonderful places. You will even see where they got the ideas for that film Noah and why the film is both good and crap at the same time, probably more crap. You will understand what the so called leaders are saying in their speeches, you will know what the conspiracies are, you will see the propaganda and recognize it. There is so much to learn and the information is available if you look. When people say everything is possible, you will understand why. You will see why it is our interpretation that leads to our belief systems. Studying all the religions and not just one opens your mind.

We have relied too much on leaders interpreting everything for us, be them politicians, priests, media or monarchies. They have controlled us through these systems for long enough. Seek the truth and stand for what is right, you can do that under a religious guise if you like, as it possible that much of your belief system is true. But if you do, isn't it better that you know what your religion is, and where it came from? What is historical fact and what has been borrowed from other belief systems?

I'm not knocking you guys, I know what you are saying.

The rule of law and religion is the same thing, a method of organizing society. They have both been corrupted to a point where no one knows what is right or wrong, they are run by corrupt people and so we have to find the truth elsewhere. Where their corruption of the system is obviously wrong, do not obey it, and do not remain silent, or it will get worse.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2014, 07:00 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 430
Pretty dern good Brown

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrownn View Post
This is not accidental nor is it planned. Let me explain.

....................there were leaders (whether chosen or imposed) who had great success with one or another of these systems, and so these leaders reputations spread.

.................. whether reptilian, alien or something else, they were considered gods. Many of the leaders proclaimed themselves to be gods.


.................. So it could be humans, aliens, reptiles or god(s) we just don't know.


...................Draw your own conclusions. It will take you into some dark, weird and wonderful places.

We have relied too much on leaders interpreting everything for us, be them politicians, priests, media or monarchies.


I'm not knocking you guys, I know what you are saying.


The rule of law and religion is the same thing, a method of organizing society.


They have both been corrupted to a point where no one knows what is right or wrong, they are run by corrupt people and so we have to find the truth elsewhere.

Where their corruption of the system is obviously wrong, do not obey it, and do not remain silent, or it will get worse.
Hello Brown

These points above are of great importance and you were right when you said this

Brown Wrote: "So it could be humans, aliens, reptiles or god(s)"


I just wanted you to know Brown that they these are all one. The humans that play patsy to these dark forces channel these being into our existence to make a physical link from "THEIR" side to 'OUR SIDE".

Now before everyone gets to thinking I am writing some new script for another one of those ghost movies, I am not. Those movies give to much power to the forces of darkness.

The darkness is such a weak force in the light so I will not be glorifying these dogs. All I am saying time is ticking and the time will come for a show down on a worldwide scale not just one on one as always.

The channels are taking the bate and the rate of decline morally that our society has plunged into is by design. This is the LAW we speak of. Free fall is an expression revealed over in the underworld.

Make no mistake all that glitters is not gold, power is gold, money, control and finally we come to worship. After complete control comes worship is always demanded however dark leaders are never satisfied in the end.

The humans the reptiles, the little gods with their misshapen human resembling heads, will all roll in the presence of "THE KING" and that my friend is the other LAW.

So we have two sets of rule AKA "Rule of Law" and the one we speak of so often on these group lists refers to the awesome power of gravity or magnetism or some many other wondrous creations emanating from the self existent one.

The rest of the little gods are always going to be on their leash in one form or another til "THE KING" appears.

You men know what I am talking about "We are Kings just like HE is"

So we as men can all understand the honor of "ANY KING"

We are Kings and we own things and control what we can in our sphere of life so when our work is stolen or misused we tend to feel that same fury as little kings that "THE KING" is experiencing right now with HIS world and the people in it.

You understand all these things as KING as you were created.

Brown; I wanted to say this again that all four things you mentioned are all one.

Another thing I need to say to Americans is that our country of people are the only people who do not understand the dark forces that all of the other nations around the world grew up seeing and believing.

Somehow we are lead to think that darkness comes only from chemically imbalanced minds who need only to be incarcerated.

This LAW that AC is speaking about is the good common sense LAW that he loves, but as strange as it may sound does not comes from the humans unless they redirect that force from the Self Existent One.

And that other LAW? That puny one that runs from the light? It is a law so pathetic it is hard to think someone would actually love that little law in the light of THE LAW emanating from the one unknown source.

THE KING He is my love and my sweetheart and without HIS light I am a dead man.

Song 5:3 I have put off my coat; how shall I put it on? I have washed my feet; how shall I defile them?
4 My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
5 I rose up to open to my beloved; and my hands dropped with myrrh, and my fingers with sweet smelling myrrh, upon the handles of the lock.
6 I opened to my beloved; but my beloved had withdrawn himself, and was gone: my soul failed when he spake: I sought him, but I could not find him; I called him, but he gave me no answer.


Michael

Last edited by BroMikey : 04-26-2014 at 07:07 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2014, 10:05 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
Well i wooda typed all that out just like that if i wasn't one handed typist.


Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrownn View Post
At this point your probably going to say I am a Darwinist non believer, but these are the facts, to the best of our knowledge, according to historical record.
Well, mr mbrownn, here it is, because you asked for it:

Consistent with his theory, Darwin predicted that the fossil record would reveal vast numbers of transitional forms between known species. This is the weak point of Darwinism, for as we shall see, the fossil record is almost entirely lacking in such transitional forms. 140 years after the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, a billion fossils have been collected, and the fossil record is substantially complete; yet with three or four exceptions which can be accounted for equally well or better by design theory, organisms occupying transitional positions between species, which Darwin predicted, have not been found. Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould has described the extreme rarity of transitional forms as the "trade secret of paleontology." What we find instead, he says, is that: The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil
record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and
directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed." Thus it was that in 1980 Gould wrote that the neo-Darwinian synthesis, "as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."
2. Punctuated Equilibrium.
In a desperate effort to breath life into Darwin's gasping theory, in 1972 Gould and Niles Eldridge proposed a new mechanism of evolution, which they called "punctuated equilibrium," for which the only evidence is the lack of transitional forms. Punctuated equilibrium is now the majority view among evolutionary theorists. That classical Darwinian theory has now been supplanted by punctuated equilibrium as the most widely accepted theory, despite the dearth of evidence for the latter view, is a measure of the weakness of classical Darwinian theory. Conversely, the refusal of many biologists to embrace punctuated equilibrium, despite the lack of evidence for Darwinism, suggests that the evidence for the new theory is also less than compelling.

The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years]. . . .
Johnson continues:
This conclusion seems so obviously correct that it gives rise to another problem. Why do other people, including experts whose intelligence and intellectual integrity I respect, think that evidence of local population fluctuations confirms the hypothesis that natural selection has the capacity to work engineering marvels, to construct wonders like the eye and the wing? Everyone who studies evolution knows that Kettlewell's peppered moth experiment is the classic demonstration of the power of natural selection, and that Darwinists had to wait almost a century to see even this modest confirmation of their central doctrine. Everyone who studies the experiment also knows that it has nothing to do with the origin of any species, or even any variety, because dark and white moths were present throughout the experiment. Only the ratios of one variety to the other changed. How could intelligent people have been so gullible as to imagine that the Kettlewell experiment in any way supported the ambitious claims of Darwinism? Behe, discussing the same evidence, quotes English biologists Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders, writing in 1979:

[T]he successes of [the neo-Darwinian synthesis] are limited to the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place.

III. Punctuated equilibrium. With gradualism defunct as a possible mechanism for evolution, Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium is natural selection's last best hope. What have other scientists to say about punctuated equilibrium? Ernst Mayrhas been universally acknowledged as the leading evolutionary biologist of the 20th Century. Stephen Jay Gould and other naturalists have cited his work as having shaped their thinking on evolution more than any other. Yet Mayr describes punctuated equilibrium as the "hopeful monsters" theory and states that it "is equivalent to believing in miracles." Michael Denton (a critic of the theory of evolution) succinctly explains the problems faced by this approach:

While Eldredge and Gould's model is a perfectly reasonable explanation of the gaps between species (and, in my view, correct), it is doubtful if it can be extended to explain the larger systematic gaps. The gaps which separate species: dog/fox, rat/mouse, etc., are utterly trivial compared with, say, that between a primitive terrestrial mammal and a whale or a primitive terrestrial reptile and an Ichthyosaur; and even these relatively major discontinuities are trivial alongside those which divide major phyla such as molluscs and arthropods. Such major discontinuities simply could not, unless we are to believe in miracles, have been crossed in geologically short periods of time through one or two transitional species occupying restricted geographical areas. Surely, such transitions must have involved long lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds or probably thousands of transitional species. . To suggest that the hundreds, thousands or possibly even millions of transitional species which must have existed in the interval between vastly dissimilar types were all unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and having very small population numbers is verging on the incredible! Thus, neither gradualism nor punctuated equilibrium are viable explanations for biological diversity, and no one has proposed any other plausible theory. Clearly, then, evolutionary theory is dead.

Francis Crick, one of the co-discoverers of the double helix structure of DNA, lamented:
An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have been satisfied to get it going. This discouragement is completely understandable, for two reasons. For one thing, it is now generally acknowledged in the scientific community that the conditions which existed in the early history of earth were completely unlike those under which Miller's experiment was conducted. Secondly, the field of molecular biochemistry has subsequently shown even the simplest living organisms to be of such mind-numbing complexity that the futility of even attempting to imagine how they could have originated out of a random mixture of chemicals quickly becomes obvious.

Johnson describes the disillusionment with Miller's experiment in the following way:
Geochemists now report that the atmosphere of the early earth probably was not of the strongly reducing nature required for the Miller-Urey apparatus to give the desired results. . . . Perhaps the most discouraging criticism has come from chemists, who have spoiled the prebiotic soup by showing that organic compounds produced on the early earth would be subject to chemical reactions making them unsuitable for constructing life. In all probability, the prebiotic soup could never have existed, and without it there is no reason to believe that the production of small amounts of some amino acids by electrical charge in a reducing atmosphere had anything to do with the origin of life. . . .

Behe quotes Klaus Dose:
More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance.

The 44 Chromosome Man | Understanding Genetics
Explosive hypothesis about humans' lack of genetic diversity | QUEST
De novo genetic variation revealed in somatic sectors of single Arabidopsis plants - F1000Research

And now, allow me to remind us all to this:

The 1959. Centennial Celebration in Chicago was Darwinism's finest hour. One of the most honored speakers on this occasion was Sir Julian Huxley, grandson of Darwin's "bulldog" T.H. Huxley. Julian Huxley's speech was a glittering oration on the majestic grandeur of Darwin's achievement, coupled with a vision of its totalizing implications for the future. Here is excerpt from his speech:

Future historians will perhaps take this Centennial Week as epitomizing an important critical period in the history of this earth of ours - the period when the process of evolution, in the person of inquiring man, began to be truly conscious of itself. This is one of the first public occasions on which it has been frankly faced that all aspects of reality are subject to evolution, from atoms and stars to fish and flowers, from fish and flowers to human societies and values - indeed, that all reality is a single process of evolution. . . .
In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created, it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion. . . .Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.


Peter's Confession of Christ
…And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."…

Amen!

Last edited by cikljamas : 04-26-2014 at 10:18 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2014, 01:34 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 969
Brown; you said; "The rule of law and religion is the same thing, a method of organizing society. They have both been corrupted to a point where no one knows what is right or wrong, they are run by corrupt people and so we have to find the truth elsewhere. Where their corruption of the system is obviously wrong, do not obey it, and do not remain silent, or it will get worse."

Well put, both religion and any/every system of Gv't. have been corrupted, over time. By PEOPLE. Interesting book I reccomend is"The pillars of the Earth",
by Ken Follet. Fictional but historically accurate work that depicts the 'fight' in medieval England, between the 2 poer bases of the time; the Government )Kings and Earls) and the CHURCH. Both had individuals who abused their power, and both became largely about money.

Interesting DVDS I reccomend; "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed". After seeing these, i bought copy of Darwins "Origin of the Species", and I heartily reccomend reading it, as well.

So many TALK about 'Evolution', and even engage in major argument/discussions about it, and yet have NEVER read the book. It is 'enlightening', to see just how much Darwin got wrong, hence my 'recomendation'.

As for the outrage over 'torture', in order to be truly outraged over torture, it seems to me you first have to 'accept' the 'necessity', and moral 'rightness' of war, and the idea that wars should be fought according to internationally accepted and agreed to 'rules of war'. Which brings us back to the subject of this hread, "The Rule of Law", as applied to nations. And, even IF you accept the 'necessity' of war, and the idea that there should be 'Rules' that every naton agrees to, (with enforcement of such rules adjuticated in the Hague International court), how do you then address an agressor, which is NOT a 'country', and which uses the 'Geneva Convention' as a kind of reverse playbook, doing everything forbidden by the G.C., while assuming thier opponents will comply? Jim
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2014, 02:54 PM
mbrownn mbrownn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,296
Wow I provoked a response there hahaha

@BroMikey

The historical record seems to suggest that they are one and the same, but are we interpreting it correctly? I'm not jumping on any bandwagons yet, but I am keeping an open mind.

@cikljamas
I am familiar with the punctuated equilibrium theory, but again it does not fully fit the bill. Life on earth may or may not have been created but who created the creator? We just don't have the answers or the evidence. Again its time for an open mind.

Either one of these topics is a whole new debate.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2014, 03:30 PM
mbrownn mbrownn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchdivco View Post
Brown; you said; "The rule of law and religion is the same thing, a method of organizing society. They have both been corrupted to a point where no one knows what is right or wrong, they are run by corrupt people and so we have to find the truth elsewhere. Where their corruption of the system is obviously wrong, do not obey it, and do not remain silent, or it will get worse."

Well put, both religion and any/every system of Gv't. have been corrupted, over time. By PEOPLE. Interesting book I reccomend is"The pillars of the Earth",
by Ken Follet. Fictional but historically accurate work that depicts the 'fight' in medieval England, between the 2 poer bases of the time; the Government )Kings and Earls) and the CHURCH. Both had individuals who abused their power, and both became largely about money.

Interesting DVDS I reccomend; "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed". After seeing these, i bought copy of Darwins "Origin of the Species", and I heartily reccomend reading it, as well.

So many TALK about 'Evolution', and even engage in major argument/discussions about it, and yet have NEVER read the book. It is 'enlightening', to see just how much Darwin got wrong, hence my 'recomendation'.

As for the outrage over 'torture', in order to be truly outraged over torture, it seems to me you first have to 'accept' the 'necessity', and moral 'rightness' of war, and the idea that wars should be fought according to internationally accepted and agreed to 'rules of war'. Which brings us back to the subject of this hread, "The Rule of Law", as applied to nations. And, even IF you accept the 'necessity' of war, and the idea that there should be 'Rules' that every naton agrees to, (with enforcement of such rules adjuticated in the Hague International court), how do you then address an agressor, which is NOT a 'country', and which uses the 'Geneva Convention' as a kind of reverse playbook, doing everything forbidden by the G.C., while assuming thier opponents will comply? Jim
You are so right about people commenting on what the haven't even read, usually the domain of shills. My father had the origin of species, I read that when was a child hahaha

There are so many works of fiction which are really works of truth it is staggering, also you find truth mixed in with misinformation, disinformation and pure fantasy. Im not saying it has all been done deliberately but I am sure much has.

Im working on the premise of "know thy enemy" at the moment and studying the Nazis, what a can of worms that has opened up!

On leadership and war a Nazi described what they do:-

“Naturally the common people don’t want war. But after all, it is the
leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it’s always a
simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy or a
fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country.”
--- Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshall, at the Nuremberg
Trials after World War II.

Its people with the same mentality that justify torture.

I woke up about 8 years ago and what I have learned is astounding. The good news I think we have passed 5% of the population with at least some of this knowledge, so now a change is inevitable. The problem is how painful will the change be? and will the change be a good one?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2014, 03:53 PM
mbrownn mbrownn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchdivco View Post
Interesting book I reccomend is"The pillars of the Earth",
by Ken Follet. Fictional but historically accurate work that depicts the 'fight' in medieval England, between the 2 poer bases of the time; the Government )Kings and Earls) and the CHURCH. Both had individuals who abused their power, and both became largely about money.

Interesting DVDS I reccomend; "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", and "Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed". After seeing these, i bought copy of Darwins "Origin of the Species", and I heartily reccomend reading it, as well.

Jim
I missed this bit, medieval England was a brutal time, and even though I am English, i haven’t studied the politics of that era any deeper than high school level. I will have to read the book you recommend. I did study the weapons of war for that period and the armour. An interesting documentary about the "art of war" at that time, comparing it with far eastern martial arts, is called "Reclaiming the Blade" Its not too heavy and your kids will enjoy it too.

Ill take a look at the DVDs too

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 04-26-2014, 09:46 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrownn View Post
Im working on the premise of "know thy enemy" at the moment and studying the Nazis, what a can of worms that has opened up!
Churchill
“In wartime, the truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”

Hitler
“In wartime, we provide truth with a bodyguard of lies because it is so precious.”

Tavistock Military Psych-Ops War School training line
“In wartime, the truth is so precious we surround it with a bodyguard of lies.”

https://archive.org/details/HitlerWasABritishAgent


Al
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 03:02 AM
wayne.ct wayne.ct is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 240
The rule of law

Perhaps you remember that the law was given because of sin? Every 'man' has a knowledge of good and bad, or good and evil, that children have to learn or not learn, as the case may be. And, because some people never learn the difference, laws are created by man, or "spoken by God", if you prefer that language. The slaves of Egypt were a particularly hard case for YHWH and the slaves actually asked Moses for the "law" because they didn't want to deal directly with God. They promised to do the impossible. They promised to obey all that God told them to do. The slaves were your basic immature children.

If, like AllCanadian, you have a deep understanding of good and bad, you don't need the rule of law, you have the knowledge and maturity of a grown, mature man. Laws are for the lawless.

The lawless either self destruct or are captured (eventually) and incarcerated by the governments "instituted among men". This is what I think of as "rule of law". When conducted and empowered by men (and not children) you have a working society. At the current time, the US is being run by children who are like the people of Ninevah, they don't know right from wrong.

We, in the US, need to re-establish the rule of law because what we have is a cult of personality or rule by an elite or an oligarchy. Pick your own terminology!

So, in my view, rule of law is a healthy society. It is simply the right way to conduct a government.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 11:53 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrownn View Post
@cikljamas
I am familiar with the punctuated equilibrium theory, but again it does not fully fit the bill. Life on earth may or may not have been created but who created the creator? We just don't have the answers or the evidence. Again its time for an open mind.
"I think so i am" (cogito ergo sum - je panse donc je suis), remember that? If you don't exist than who am i communicating with? So, if you are (exist) then at least you (contingent being) are (exist). If anything at all (for instance - you) exists, then existence is real. Had any kind of existence ever existed then absolute nothingness have not existed and never will. After all, nothingness and existence absolutely exclude each other. It means that Absolute Being is real, cause any kind of existence is possible only by presumption of unconditional everlasting-timeless existence of Absolute Being (otherwise it would have not been absolute), cause the only way to avoid absolute nothingness is "to postulate" REAL-TIMELESS-UNCAUSED-SELF-SUSTAINED (which means absolute) Absolute Being.

It is obvious upon reflection that "what a thing is" and "that it is" are completely different statements.

That a thing is or has existence, is a principle really distinct from its quiddity. In no case (except for God) does the essence of a thing indicate anything about whether that thing really is. The essence of a horse that exists, and the essence of a horse that doesn't are absolutely the same, namely horse-ness; a horse's existing is totally different from what kind of a thing it is. Therefore, there must be something about really existing things that accounts for this very existing, and it is not their essence; it is their existence. Existence then is that which makes essences to be, to exercise the act of existing.

Essence and Existence are the same in God (Aesity)

Before embarking on this study of substance, however, Aristotle goes on in Book Γ to argue that first philosophy, the most general of the sciences, must also address the most fundamental principles—the common axioms—that are used in all reasoning. Thus, first philosophy must also concern itself with the principle of non-contradiction (PNC): the principle that “the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect” (1005b19). This, Aristotle says, is the most certain of all principles, and it is not just a hypothesis. It cannot, however, be proved, since it is employed, implicitly, in all proofs, no matter what the subject matter. It is a first principle, and hence is not derived from anything more basic.

What, then, can the science of first philosophy say about the PNC? It cannot offer a proof of the PNC, since the PNC is presupposed by any proof one might offer—any purported proof of the PNC would therefore be circular. Aristotle thus does not attempt to prove the PNC; in the subsequent chapters of Γ he argues, instead, that it is impossible to disbelieve the PNC. Those who would claim to deny the PNC cannot, if they have any beliefs at all, believe that it is false. For one who has a belief must, if he is to express this belief to himself or to others, say something—he must make an assertion. He must, as Aristotle says, signify something. But the very act of signifying something is possible only if the PNC is accepted. Without accepting the PNC, one would have no reason to think that his words have any signification at all—they could not mean one thing rather than another. So anyone who makes any assertion has already committed himself to the PNC. Aristotle thus does not argue that the PNC is a necessary truth (that is, he does not try to prove the PNC); rather, he argues that the PNC is indubitable.

PNC is indubitable, same goes with this: "ex ninilo nihil fit": Existence can not come out of Non-Existence, something can not emerge out of Nothing, it is self-evident inclusion - axiom which we are capable to comprehend!!!

(b) Aristotle also offers (1050b6–1051a2) an “even stricter” argument for his claim that actuality is prior in substance to potentiality. A potentiality is for either of a pair of opposites; so anything that is capable of being is also capable of not being. What is capable of not being might possibly not be, and what might possibly not be is perishable. Hence anything with the mere potentiality to be is perishable. What is eternal is imperishable, and so nothing that is eternal can exist only potentially—what is eternal must be fully actual. But the eternal is prior in substance to the perishable. For the eternal can exist without the perishable, but not conversely, and that is what priority in substance amounts to (cf. Δ.11, 1019a2). So what is actual is prior in substance to what is potential.

So God is pure act, pure actuality, necessary Uncaused Cause:

If every cause is the result of a previous cause, or, if everything is caused by something else, then we have an "infinite regress" of causes.

An infinite regress of causes is logically incoherent. To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past causes is to suggest that we have come to the end of an infinite series. An infinite series, however, is by definition a series with no end. So this would mean that we have come to the end of a series with no end, which is logically incoherent.

Hilbert's Hotel and Infinity


About intellectual honesty and scientific credibility of modern darwinists who still apologetically try to defend undefendable shame of theory (of evolution) which was from the very beginning nothing else but utter "insult for sane mind" (to literally translate one croatian phrase):

Michael Behe's Critics Misunderstand Irreducible Complexity and Make Darwinian Evolution Unfalsifiable - See more at: Michael Behe's Critics Misunderstand Irreducible Complexity and Make Darwinian Evolution Unfalsifiable - Evolution News & Views

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry


DNA Trash Talk

One of the greatest philosophers of 20th century:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/sho....Marijan_Cipra

His book "The metamorphoses of metaphisics" is pure masterpiece of world philosophy...

Looming Faustian Night

Last edited by cikljamas : 04-27-2014 at 12:15 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 01:30 PM
Ben2503 Ben2503 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
An infinite regress of causes is logically incoherent. To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past causes is to suggest that we have come to the end of an infinite series. An infinite series, however, is by definition a series with no end. So this would mean that we have come to the end of a series with no end, which is logically incoherent.

Hilbert's Hotel and Infinity

Always funny these semantical discussions. How can a hotel with infinite rooms be fully booked???
And from this one can derive that infinite does not exists and thus a god must exist. Well infinite exist it is the TAN(90degrees).
It is as silly as the "can God create a stone he cannot lift" question.

Why can't we accept each other viewpoints, look for the common grounds and try to make a better world. Human arrogance is in my view the worst evil. Scientist claiming that if they can't measure it, it doesn't exist is as arrogant as claiming to have found the "one and only truth" in whatever religion.

To me they are both right. We are living is the laboratory of some very high intelligence. This intelligence we can all make use of by simply using our minds and common sense.

Back to the topic.
I think there should be only 3 basic laws:
1. You shall not physically hurt somebody.
2. You shall not steal.
3. You shall not lie.

Especially the last one needs to be enforced strongly. Then we will get rid of dishonest politicians, bankers, salesmen and spouses.

Take care
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #42 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 03:00 PM
mbrownn mbrownn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,296
Any discussion on the existence of something we cannot prove, cannot have a solution, therefore we become distracted trying to debate it. It is a form of divide and rule.

Religion is proven to exist, god isn't, therefore no solution has been found to the god question.

Should we spend our time debating this or is there more pressing matters? Yes, if god were proven to exist it would be a different situation, but for now, lets deal with the matters at hand.

Current affairs and the rule of law/religion are proven, do have direct implications on our lives, and require our urgent attention, so lets not get distracted.

The point on lies is valid, and it needs qualification on what is harm, hence a law or some type of enforcement system. Yes, their are existing laws, but these laws have been effectively nullified for the rich and powerful. Presidents have been set where "officials" are allowed to lie and go unchecked. This is something that needs to be addressed.

Disobedience does not work here as it is the officials that have turned disobedience against us. You see how that works? Turn your enemies weapons against them?

This is an area where democracy can work. Almost certainly if the people were allowed to vote on a lie told by a politician, the politician would be in trouble, but you wont be allowed to get a vote, and they know that. So what is the solution?

The systems are in place in the U.S but have been nullified through federal law and similar actions. The truth is, it is your constitution that is your last chance on this one as that trumps all other laws in the US. This is under serious attack from the politicians/banksters/elites. Its time to educate, so you must speak out.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 03:15 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben2503 View Post
...i just don't understand
Referring to the first part of your post, i must again notice that you just don't understand philosophical language either...It seems you just can't fail to misunderstand everything you touch or think about...You are kind of genius, don't you?

Well, i could try one more time to hit you with the real thing, though it's very likely that my efforts are gonna be in vain:

1. In his chief philosophical work Critique of Pure Reason, Kant wrote: “I inevitably believe in the existence of God and in a future life, and I am certain that nothing can shake this belief, since my moral principles would thereby be themselves overthrown, and I cannot disclaim them without becoming abhorrent in my own eyes.” (Kant 1929, 856).

3. In his Lectures on Philosophical Theology, Kant stated: “God created the world for His honor’s sake because it is only through the obedience to His holylaws that God can be honored. For what does it mean to honor God? What, if not to serve Him? But how can He be served? Certainly not by trying to entice His favor by rendering Him all sorts of praise. For such praise is at best only a means for preparing our hearts to a good disposition. Instead, the service of God consists simply and solely in following His will and observing His holy laws and commands.” (Kant 1978, 142-143).

4. “God is the only ruler of the world. He governs as a monarch, but not as a despot; for He wills to have His commands observed out of love, and not out of servile fear. Like a father, He orders what is good for us, and does not command out of mere arbitrariness, like a tyrant. God even demands of us that we reflect on the reason for His commandments, and He insists on our observing them because He wants first to make us worthy of happiness and then participate in it. God’s will is benevolence, and His purpose is what is best.” (Kant 1978, 156; Lectures on Philosophical Theology).


4. In a letter to Voltaire, Rousseau wrote: “I have suffered too much in my life not to look forward to another. Not all the subtleties of metaphysics can shake for one moment my belief in a beneficent Providence. I sense the existence of Providence, I believe in it, I insist on it, I hope for it, I shall defend it to my last breath.” (Rousseau, as cited in Guehenno 1966, 351; see also Caputo 2000, 65).

6. “Conscience! Conscience! Divine instinct, immortal voice from heaven; sure guide for a creature ignorant and finite indeed, yet intelligent and free;infallible judge of good and evil, making man like to God! In thee consists the excellence of man’s nature and the morality of his actions; apart from thee, I find nothing in myself to raise me above the beasts - nothing but the sad privilege of wandering from one error to another, by the help of an unbridled understanding and a reason which knows no principle.” (Rousseau 1911, Book IV; see also Hampson 1969, 34).

3. “All nature cries to us that He exists, that there is a Supreme Intelligence, a power immense, an order admirable, and all teaches us our dependence.” (Voltaire, as cited in Parton 1884, 554).

3. In The Natural History of Religion(1757), Hume wrote: “Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent Power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single Being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. …All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author.” (David Hume 1956, 26).

4. “The order of the universe proves an omnipotent Mind.” (David Hume 1978; Treatise, 633n).

3. “I say that it is by no means necessary to salvation to know Christ after the flesh; but of the eternal Son of God, that is, the eternal wisdom of God, which has shown itself forth in all things, and chiefly in the mind of man, and most chiefly of all in Jesus Christ, we are to think far otherwise. For without this no one can attain the state of blessedness; since this alone teaches what is true and false, good and evil. And because, as I have said, this wisdom was chiefly shown forth through Jesus Christ, his disciples preached the same as by him it was revealed to them, and showed that in that spirit of Christ they could exalt themselves above others.” (Spinoza, as cited in Frederick Pollock, Spinoza: His Life and Philosophy, Adamant Media Corporation, Boston, 2000, 353).

4. “God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists.” (Spinoza 1883, Part I,Prop. XI).


2. “When I say the being of a God, I do not mean an obscure general Cause of things, whereof we have no conception, but God, in the strict and proper sense of the word. A Being whose spirituality, omnipresence, providence, omniscience, infinite power and goodness, are as conspicuous as the existence of sensible things, of which (notwithstanding the fallacious pretences and affected scruples of Sceptics) there is no more reason to doubt than of our own being.” (George Berkeley 1910, 3rd Dial.)

4. “Among the facts of the universe to be accounted for, it may be said, is mind; and it is self evident that nothing can have produced mind but Mind.” (John Stuart Mill 1969, 439).

9. “Christianity is indeed the only sure way to happiness.”(Wittgenstein, as cited in Monk 1991, 122).

12. Wittgenstein’s biographer and friend, Norman Malcolm wrote: “Wittgenstein’s mature life was strongly marked by religious thought and feeling. I am inclined to think that he was more deeply religious than are many people who correctly regard themselves as religious believers.” (Wittgenstein, as cited in Norman Malcolm, Wittgenstein: A Religious Point of View?, London, Routledge, 1993, 21-22).

13. Two years before his death, Wittgenstein said to Drury: “I have had a letter from an old friend in Austria, a priest. In it he says he hopes my work will go well, if it should be God’s will. Now that is all I want: if it should be God’s will. Bach wrote on the title page of his Orgelbuechlein, ‘To the glory of the most high God, and that my neighbour may be benefited thereby.’ That is what I would have liked to say about my work.” (Wittgenstein, as cited in Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal Recollections, editor – Rush Rhees, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1981, 181-182).

1. “The basic structure of my argument is this. Scientists, historians, and detectives observe data and proceed thence to some theory about what best explainsthe occurrence of these data. We can analyse the criteria which they use in reaching a conclusion that a certain theory is better supported by the data than a different theory – that is, is more likely, on the basis of those data, to be true. Using those same criteria, we find that the view that there is a God explains everything we observe, not just some narrow range of data. It explains the factt hat there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it. The very same criteria which scientists use to reach their own theories lead us to move beyond those theories to a creator God who sustains everything in existence.” (Richard Swinburne, Is There a God?, Oxford University Press, 1996, 2, italics in original).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben2503 View Post
Back to the topic.
I think there should be only 3 basic laws:
1. You shall not physically hurt somebody.
2. You shall not steal.
3. You shall not lie.

Especially the last one needs to be enforced strongly. Then we will get rid of dishonest politicians, bankers, salesmen and spouses.

Take care
Why shouldn't i physically hurt you?
Why shouldn't i steal your goods?
Why shouldn't i lie to you?
Why???

Now wake up finally:

There is an ever increasing highway that is being built in the Middle East and Africa. It is no longer tribal factions fighting over grazing land, or water rights. This is a blackness of untold magnitude that is spreading from the east to the west. And it’s growing like a cancer. It has been covered in a fog from the bottom to the top. The bottom with the media, and the top with Governments. The media is working alongside the governments in these areas and the West to cover and distract the world from knowing the truth.

We get only snapshots of terror, that they like to blame on tribal fighting, and small groups of religious zealots, & civil wars over evil dictators. It works for the most part because it guides the public into thinking it’s the same old fight that’s been going on for centuries—why worry about it.

This is not the truth. There is a terrible highway being built by evil factions that have one agenda. Though they are a mixed people they have one goal in mind, and that is to kill everyone and everything that is different from them. If you don’t believe in their brand of god, than you will die.

Look at Syria and the devastation there not only to the land, but to the people. Millions have fled, hundreds of thousands have died in heinous ways. The devastation continue while most in the West distract, distract, distract from the truth.

In Somalia today, Charisma magazine is reporting that a woman who converted to Christianity was dragged from her home and shot in the street with the community watching. Some tried to help her, and so they fired into the crowd. This was Al-shabab. (More) Al-shabab is connected to Al-queda via the terror network that is spreading through a super highway of evil. These evil abominations have manifested themselves and are targeting governments and officials in an attempt to rid the regions of ‘Christians.’

This is happening in Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Lybia, and the CAR. Look at all the deaths to the lawmakers there in recent past. And this is the claim made by these incendiary thugs. They are ridding their land of Christians and those who take money from the West. This is happening in Nigeria, it’s happening in the CAR, it’s happening in Libya, Pakistan, & Afghanistan. It’s time for the world to wake up!

While they have unleashed this snake, dragon, beast, a silent genocide is being carried out. While they terrorize communities, innocents, and governments, the west is silent. They have created these groups Al-qaeda-like, to do their dirty work like in Afghanistan, with proxy wars and now they can’t control them. They can’t do anything but watch. Watch in horror as Christians and the worse slaughter in history takes place. This will go down in history as the second holocaust. A holocaust like the first, as the world was silent while it’s carried out. And they are silent for the second holocaust. So maybe some of our questions have been answered. The West and the world is complicit in this slaughter. And Christians and other minorities are indeed just collateral damage.

Read more: VOICE OF THE PERSECUTED « One small voice cries out for the Persecuted Church!

Graphic Images of Christian Persecution Under Islam

Syria Dutch priest Fr van der Lugt shot dead in Homs

Last edited by cikljamas : 04-27-2014 at 03:18 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 03:53 PM
Ben2503 Ben2503 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
Referring to the first part of your post, i must again notice that you just don't understand philosophical language either...It seems you just can't fail to misunderstand everything you touch or think about...You are kind of genius, don't you?

Well, i could try one more time to hit you with the real thing, though it's very likely that my efforts are gonna be in vain:

1. In his chief philosophical work Critique of Pure Reason, Kant wrote: “I inevitably believe in the existence of God and in a future life, and I am certain that nothing can shake this belief, since my moral principles would thereby be themselves overthrown, and I cannot disclaim them without becoming abhorrent in my own eyes.” (Kant 1929, 856).

3. In his Lectures on Philosophical Theology, Kant stated: “God created the world for His honor’s sake because it is only through the obedience to His holylaws that God can be honored. For what does it mean to honor God? What, if not to serve Him? But how can He be served? Certainly not by trying to entice His favor by rendering Him all sorts of praise. For such praise is at best only a means for preparing our hearts to a good disposition. Instead, the service of God consists simply and solely in following His will and observing His holy laws and commands.” (Kant 1978, 142-143).

4. “God is the only ruler of the world. He governs as a monarch, but not as a despot; for He wills to have His commands observed out of love, and not out of servile fear. Like a father, He orders what is good for us, and does not command out of mere arbitrariness, like a tyrant. God even demands of us that we reflect on the reason for His commandments, and He insists on our observing them because He wants first to make us worthy of happiness and then participate in it. God’s will is benevolence, and His purpose is what is best.” (Kant 1978, 156; Lectures on Philosophical Theology).


4. In a letter to Voltaire, Rousseau wrote: “I have suffered too much in my life not to look forward to another. Not all the subtleties of metaphysics can shake for one moment my belief in a beneficent Providence. I sense the existence of Providence, I believe in it, I insist on it, I hope for it, I shall defend it to my last breath.” (Rousseau, as cited in Guehenno 1966, 351; see also Caputo 2000, 65).

6. “Conscience! Conscience! Divine instinct, immortal voice from heaven; sure guide for a creature ignorant and finite indeed, yet intelligent and free;infallible judge of good and evil, making man like to God! In thee consists the excellence of man’s nature and the morality of his actions; apart from thee, I find nothing in myself to raise me above the beasts - nothing but the sad privilege of wandering from one error to another, by the help of an unbridled understanding and a reason which knows no principle.” (Rousseau 1911, Book IV; see also Hampson 1969, 34).

3. “All nature cries to us that He exists, that there is a Supreme Intelligence, a power immense, an order admirable, and all teaches us our dependence.” (Voltaire, as cited in Parton 1884, 554).

3. In The Natural History of Religion(1757), Hume wrote: “Were men led into the apprehension of invisible, intelligent Power by a contemplation of the works of nature, they could never possibly entertain any conception but of one single Being, who bestowed existence and order on this vast machine, and adjusted all its parts, according to one regular plan or connected system. …All things in the universe are evidently of a piece. Every thing is adjusted to every thing. One design prevails throughout the whole. And this uniformity leads the mind to acknowledge one Author.” (David Hume 1956, 26).

4. “The order of the universe proves an omnipotent Mind.” (David Hume 1978; Treatise, 633n).

3. “I say that it is by no means necessary to salvation to know Christ after the flesh; but of the eternal Son of God, that is, the eternal wisdom of God, which has shown itself forth in all things, and chiefly in the mind of man, and most chiefly of all in Jesus Christ, we are to think far otherwise. For without this no one can attain the state of blessedness; since this alone teaches what is true and false, good and evil. And because, as I have said, this wisdom was chiefly shown forth through Jesus Christ, his disciples preached the same as by him it was revealed to them, and showed that in that spirit of Christ they could exalt themselves above others.” (Spinoza, as cited in Frederick Pollock, Spinoza: His Life and Philosophy, Adamant Media Corporation, Boston, 2000, 353).

4. “God, or substance, consisting of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists.” (Spinoza 1883, Part I,Prop. XI).


2. “When I say the being of a God, I do not mean an obscure general Cause of things, whereof we have no conception, but God, in the strict and proper sense of the word. A Being whose spirituality, omnipresence, providence, omniscience, infinite power and goodness, are as conspicuous as the existence of sensible things, of which (notwithstanding the fallacious pretences and affected scruples of Sceptics) there is no more reason to doubt than of our own being.” (George Berkeley 1910, 3rd Dial.)

4. “Among the facts of the universe to be accounted for, it may be said, is mind; and it is self evident that nothing can have produced mind but Mind.” (John Stuart Mill 1969, 439).

9. “Christianity is indeed the only sure way to happiness.”(Wittgenstein, as cited in Monk 1991, 122).

12. Wittgenstein’s biographer and friend, Norman Malcolm wrote: “Wittgenstein’s mature life was strongly marked by religious thought and feeling. I am inclined to think that he was more deeply religious than are many people who correctly regard themselves as religious believers.” (Wittgenstein, as cited in Norman Malcolm, Wittgenstein: A Religious Point of View?, London, Routledge, 1993, 21-22).

13. Two years before his death, Wittgenstein said to Drury: “I have had a letter from an old friend in Austria, a priest. In it he says he hopes my work will go well, if it should be God’s will. Now that is all I want: if it should be God’s will. Bach wrote on the title page of his Orgelbuechlein, ‘To the glory of the most high God, and that my neighbour may be benefited thereby.’ That is what I would have liked to say about my work.” (Wittgenstein, as cited in Ludwig Wittgenstein: Personal Recollections, editor – Rush Rhees, Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1981, 181-182).

1. “The basic structure of my argument is this. Scientists, historians, and detectives observe data and proceed thence to some theory about what best explainsthe occurrence of these data. We can analyse the criteria which they use in reaching a conclusion that a certain theory is better supported by the data than a different theory – that is, is more likely, on the basis of those data, to be true. Using those same criteria, we find that the view that there is a God explains everything we observe, not just some narrow range of data. It explains the factt hat there is a universe at all, that scientific laws operate within it. The very same criteria which scientists use to reach their own theories lead us to move beyond those theories to a creator God who sustains everything in existence.” (Richard Swinburne, Is There a God?, Oxford University Press, 1996, 2, italics in original).



Why shouldn't i physically hurt you?
Why shouldn't i steal your goods?
Why shouldn't i lie to you?
Why???

Now wake up finally:

There is an ever increasing highway that is being built in the Middle East and Africa. It is no longer tribal factions fighting over grazing land, or water rights. This is a blackness of untold magnitude that is spreading from the east to the west. And it’s growing like a cancer. It has been covered in a fog from the bottom to the top. The bottom with the media, and the top with Governments. The media is working alongside the governments in these areas and the West to cover and distract the world from knowing the truth.

We get only snapshots of terror, that they like to blame on tribal fighting, and small groups of religious zealots, & civil wars over evil dictators. It works for the most part because it guides the public into thinking it’s the same old fight that’s been going on for centuries—why worry about it.

This is not the truth. There is a terrible highway being built by evil factions that have one agenda. Though they are a mixed people they have one goal in mind, and that is to kill everyone and everything that is different from them. If you don’t believe in their brand of god, than you will die.

Look at Syria and the devastation there not only to the land, but to the people. Millions have fled, hundreds of thousands have died in heinous ways. The devastation continue while most in the West distract, distract, distract from the truth.

In Somalia today, Charisma magazine is reporting that a woman who converted to Christianity was dragged from her home and shot in the street with the community watching. Some tried to help her, and so they fired into the crowd. This was Al-shabab. (More) Al-shabab is connected to Al-queda via the terror network that is spreading through a super highway of evil. These evil abominations have manifested themselves and are targeting governments and officials in an attempt to rid the regions of ‘Christians.’

This is happening in Somalia, Nigeria, Syria, Lybia, and the CAR. Look at all the deaths to the lawmakers there in recent past. And this is the claim made by these incendiary thugs. They are ridding their land of Christians and those who take money from the West. This is happening in Nigeria, it’s happening in the CAR, it’s happening in Libya, Pakistan, & Afghanistan. It’s time for the world to wake up!

While they have unleashed this snake, dragon, beast, a silent genocide is being carried out. While they terrorize communities, innocents, and governments, the west is silent. They have created these groups Al-qaeda-like, to do their dirty work like in Afghanistan, with proxy wars and now they can’t control them. They can’t do anything but watch. Watch in horror as Christians and the worse slaughter in history takes place. This will go down in history as the second holocaust. A holocaust like the first, as the world was silent while it’s carried out. And they are silent for the second holocaust. So maybe some of our questions have been answered. The West and the world is complicit in this slaughter. And Christians and other minorities are indeed just collateral damage.

Read more: VOICE OF THE PERSECUTED « One small voice cries out for the Persecuted Church!

Graphic Images of Christian Persecution Under Islam

Syria Dutch priest Fr van der Lugt shot dead in Homs
Forget about all these guys quoted above, just quote ME!

Keep live simple, free and honest.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 05:18 PM
dutchdivco dutchdivco is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 969
mbrown

My Dad encouraged me, years ago, to learn about Nazis and WW2. I read "Rise and Fall of Adolph Hitler", and "Winds of War", (and its sequel) "War and Remeberence" (sp?). The last 2 by Herman Wouk, an historian. But, he writes them as fiction, and puts his fictional characters in real historical settings. It makes it highly enjoyable reading. So, I reccomend you check these out! Actually, this is very similar to the book I reccomended in an earlier post, about medieval England, where he also used fictional characters to paint a really good picture of the power struggles of the time.

My favorite quote; "Fanatasism consists of redoubling your effort, while forgetting your aim!" Wishing ya well, Jim
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 06:50 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 430
Free, Honest????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben2503 View Post
Forget about all these guys quoted above, just quote ME!

Keep live simple, free and honest.
Hello Ben

The way to cut to the chase is find out how you define honest. By who's definition? By the street rats definition mugging a wealth business man for a few bucks while he starves is justice.

Unless all you folks find out your source for some super special code of mortality questions will never stop. You will question the questions unless you start answering these root ones.

Take the big one first "Don't kill folks" find out why this is right, correct and where is came from. Don't forget to find out why folks shouldn't kill from this source of yours and so on.

Keep rehearsing this definition till you exhaust all of the various ways folks define and solve this problem.

I say problem because some definitions permit the slaughter of others based on a variety of reasons that are considered legit.

Murder is what should be defined and who is making the rules for killing.

Today an eye for an eye type Law does not exist so we can forget drowning in endless chatter about how killers should be killed, it don't happen.

Killers go free, we know that. That is not the point, we all know better than this, BUT HOW?


HUMM..............

Mike

Last edited by BroMikey : 04-27-2014 at 06:52 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 07:13 PM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 430
Hand Over Mouth

Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
"I think so i am" (cogito ergo sum - je panse donc je suis), remember that? If you don't exist than who am i communicating with? So, if you are (exist) then at least you (contingent being) are (exist). If anything at all (for instance - you) exists, then existence is real. Had any kind of existence ever existed then absolute nothingness have not existed and never will. After all, nothingness and existence absolutely exclude each other. It means that Absolute Being is real, cause any kind of existence is possible only by presumption of unconditional everlasting-timeless existence of Absolute Being (otherwise it would have not been absolute), cause the only way to avoid absolute nothingness is "to postulate" REAL-TIMELESS-UNCAUSED-SELF-SUSTAINED (which means absolute) Absolute Being.

It is obvious upon reflection that "what a thing is" and "that it is" are completely different statements.

That a thing is or has existence, is a principle really distinct from its quiddity. In no case (except for God) does the essence of a thing indicate anything about whether that thing really is. The essence of a horse that exists, and the essence of a horse that doesn't are absolutely the same, namely horse-ness; a horse's existing is totally different from what kind of a thing it is. Therefore, there must be something about really existing things that accounts for this very existing, and it is not their essence; it is their existence. Existence then is that which makes essences to be, to exercise the act of existing.

Essence and Existence are the same in God (Aesity)

Before embarking on this study of substance, however, Aristotle goes on in Book Γ to argue that first philosophy, the most general of the sciences, must also address the most fundamental principles—the common axioms—that are used in all reasoning. Thus, first philosophy must also concern itself with the principle of non-contradiction (PNC): the principle that “the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect” (1005b19). This, Aristotle says, is the most certain of all principles, and it is not just a hypothesis. It cannot, however, be proved, since it is employed, implicitly, in all proofs, no matter what the subject matter. It is a first principle, and hence is not derived from anything more basic.

What, then, can the science of first philosophy say about the PNC? It cannot offer a proof of the PNC, since the PNC is presupposed by any proof one might offer—any purported proof of the PNC would therefore be circular. Aristotle thus does not attempt to prove the PNC; in the subsequent chapters of Γ he argues, instead, that it is impossible to disbelieve the PNC. Those who would claim to deny the PNC cannot, if they have any beliefs at all, believe that it is false. For one who has a belief must, if he is to express this belief to himself or to others, say something—he must make an assertion. He must, as Aristotle says, signify something. But the very act of signifying something is possible only if the PNC is accepted. Without accepting the PNC, one would have no reason to think that his words have any signification at all—they could not mean one thing rather than another. So anyone who makes any assertion has already committed himself to the PNC. Aristotle thus does not argue that the PNC is a necessary truth (that is, he does not try to prove the PNC); rather, he argues that the PNC is indubitable.

PNC is indubitable, same goes with this: "ex ninilo nihil fit": Existence can not come out of Non-Existence, something can not emerge out of Nothing, it is self-evident inclusion - axiom which we are capable to comprehend!!!

(b) Aristotle also offers (1050b6–1051a2) an “even stricter” argument for his claim that actuality is prior in substance to potentiality. A potentiality is for either of a pair of opposites; so anything that is capable of being is also capable of not being. What is capable of not being might possibly not be, and what might possibly not be is perishable. Hence anything with the mere potentiality to be is perishable. What is eternal is imperishable, and so nothing that is eternal can exist only potentially—what is eternal must be fully actual. But the eternal is prior in substance to the perishable. For the eternal can exist without the perishable, but not conversely, and that is what priority in substance amounts to (cf. Δ.11, 1019a2). So what is actual is prior in substance to what is potential.

So God is pure act, pure actuality, necessary Uncaused Cause:

If every cause is the result of a previous cause, or, if everything is caused by something else, then we have an "infinite regress" of causes.

An infinite regress of causes is logically incoherent. To suggest that there have been an infinite regress of past causes is to suggest that we have come to the end of an infinite series. An infinite series, however, is by definition a series with no end. So this would mean that we have come to the end of a series with no end, which is logically incoherent.

Hilbert's Hotel and Infinity


About intellectual honesty and scientific credibility of modern darwinists who still apologetically try to defend undefendable shame of theory (of evolution) which was from the very beginning nothing else but utter "insult for sane mind" (to literally translate one croatian phrase):

Michael Behe's Critics Misunderstand Irreducible Complexity and Make Darwinian Evolution Unfalsifiable - See more at: Michael Behe's Critics Misunderstand Irreducible Complexity and Make Darwinian Evolution Unfalsifiable - Evolution News & Views

Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry


DNA Trash Talk

One of the greatest philosophers of 20th century:
https://www.goodreads.com/author/sho....Marijan_Cipra

His book "The metamorphoses of metaphisics" is pure masterpiece of world philosophy...

Looming Faustian Night
@cikljamas

Great job whipping the kids with all of the historical data concerning how each figure tries to get one leg up and the next guy. They don't add up. There is always some ridiculous flaw in their doctrines.

So every person that wants to brush onto this subject does not realize that it is more involved than pulsing a coil of wire or collecting the suns rays.

Once they find out that this discussion requires more research than all of the other studies combined they will throw up their hands and quit.

What you are doing needs to be done as you get many main points as stated by others throughout history. A+

Wear dem critter out. All you can do with a wild ass is whip it's back. They will thank you in the end.

Truly all of the data is an endless burden to review and demands much work to carry it all around like good little donkeys.

This is our job for free energy, right? Carry around all of the facts, right?

Well? Keep filling our saddlebags so us good little jack asses with all of our high spirited claims can finally set down under the weight of that load, to the simple life of hailing and honoring "THE KING"

This is how THE SELF EXISTENT ONE finds out who is thirsty for HIM.

Folks open mouth insert foot when they ask THESE questions in a manner that shows they consider it generally real easy to answer.

Mike
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 07:38 PM
Ben2503 Ben2503 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
Hello Ben

The way to cut to the chase is find out how you define honest. By who's definition? By the street rats definition mugging a wealth business man for a few bucks while he starves is justice.

Unless all you folks find out your source for some super special code of mortality questions will never stop. You will question the questions unless you start answering these root ones.

Take the big one first "Don't kill folks" find out why this is right, correct and where is came from. Don't forget to find out why folks shouldn't kill from this source of yours and so on.

Keep rehearsing this definition till you exhaust all of the various ways folks define and solve this problem.

I say problem because some definitions permit the slaughter of others based on a variety of reasons that are considered legit.

Murder is what should be defined and who is making the rules for killing.

Today an eye for an eye type Law does not exist so we can forget drowning in endless chatter about how killers should be killed, it don't happen.

Killers go free, we know that. That is not the point, we all know better than this, BUT HOW?


HUMM..............

Mike
Hi Mike.
With honest I meant "don't lie". Not immoral or a-social behavior. apparently it is OK to lie as long you're not in court. This is so wrong, there should be big penalties on telling people lies in order to get them to buy something, or vote on you or get them to your church etc..

I changed 'Thy shall not kill" as this implies 'it is OK to beat the **** out of somebody'?
So I feel it should be changed in 'don't harm anybody'.

Don't steal. People should not have to live behind locked doors or afraid when walking the streets late at night.

3 simple rules that should be punished when broken intentionally.

On the other hand, the governments should make sure that: free and unpolluted water is available to everybody; help is given to those that need it; taxes are fair; etc..
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 07:38 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post

Killers go free, we know that. That is not the point, we all know better than this, BUT HOW?


HUMM..............

Mike
There is only one way, not to be afraid of what you might find in your persistent and honest quest for the ultimate truth.

In a speech to University College (1903), Kelvin said: “Do not be afraid to be free thinkers. If you think strongly enough, you will be forced by science to the belief in God.” (Kelvin, as cited in Yahya 2002). “The atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words.” (Lord Kelvin, Vict. Inst., 124, p. 267, as cited in Bowden 1982, 218).

4. “To me it is unthinkable that a real atheist could be a scientist.” (Millikan, as cited in Grounds 1945, 22). “I have never known a thinking man who did not believe in God.” (Millikan 1925).

To the question, “Many prominent scientists - including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck - have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?” Christian Anfinsen replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.” (Anfinsen, as cited in Margenau and Varghese, ‘Cosmos, Bios, Theos’, 1997, 139).

In a letter to his wife (December 1873), Maxwell wrote: “I am always with you in spirit, but there is One who is nearer to you and to me than we ever can be to each other, and it is only through Him and in Him that we can ever really get to know each other. Let us try to realise the great mystery in Ephesians V., and then we shall be in our right position with respect to the world outside, the men and women whom Christ came to savefrom their sins.” (Maxwell, as cited in Campbell and Garnett 1882, 387).

“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes restin them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” (Bacon 1875, 64).

Commenting on the first verse of the Bible in Chicago Daily News(12 April 1936), Arthur Compton stated his religious views: “For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man.It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence. An orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered: ‘In the beginning God…’ [Genesis 1, 1].” (Compton 1936).

In 1873 Darwin stated: “The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God.” (Darwin, as cited in Bowden 1998, 273).

‘I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creatorcould put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.’ J. P. Sartre

We know that whenever God is experienced, it is an experience exactly as real as a direct sense impression, as realas one’s own personality. As such He must be missing from the space-time picture. ‘I do not meet with God in space and time’, so says the honest scientific thinker, and for that reason he is reproached by those in whose catechism it is nevertheless stated: ‘God is Spirit’.” (Schroedinger, as cited in Moore 1990,379; see also Schroedinger’s Mind and Matter, Cambridge University Press, 1958, p. 68).

9. “As a physicist, that is, a man who had devoted his whole life to a wholly prosaic science, the exploration of matter, no one would surely suspect me of being a fantast. And so, having studied the atom, I am telling you that there is no matter as such! All matter arises and persists only due to a force that causes the atomic particles to vibrate, holding them together in the tiniest of solar systems, the atom. Yet in the whole of the universe there is no force that is either intelligent oreternal, and we must therefore assume that behind this force there is a conscious, intelligent Mind or Spirit. This is the very origin of all matter.” (Planck, as cited in Eggenstein 1984, Part I; see “Materialistic Science on the Wrong Track”).

7. “That God existed before there were human beings on Earth,that He holds the entire world, believers and non-believers, in His omnipotent hand for eternity, and that He will remain enthroned on a level inaccessible to human comprehension longafter the Earth and everything that is on it has gone to ruins; those who profess this faith and who, inspired by it, in veneration and complete confidence, feel secure from the dangers of life under protection of the Almighty, only those may number themselves among the truly religious.” (Planck, as cited in Staguhn 1992, 152).

‘The stuff of the world is mind-stuff. The mind-stuff is not spread in space and time.’ Sir Arthur Eddington (1928)

I maintain knowledge of the existence of God as the most certain and obvious of all! Descartes

Last edited by cikljamas : 04-27-2014 at 07:42 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old 04-27-2014, 08:33 PM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by BroMikey View Post
@cikljamas

Great job whipping the kids with all of the historical data concerning how each figure tries to get one leg up and the next guy. They don't add up. There is always some ridiculous flaw in their doctrines.

So every person that wants to brush onto this subject does not realize that it is more involved than pulsing a coil of wire or collecting the suns rays.

Once they find out that this discussion requires more research than all of the other studies combined they will throw up their hands and quit.

What you are doing needs to be done as you get many main points as stated by others throughout history. A+

Wear dem critter out. All you can do with a wild ass is whip it's back. They will thank you in the end.

Truly all of the data is an endless burden to review and demands much work to carry it all around like good little donkeys.

This is our job for free energy, right? Carry around all of the facts, right?

Well? Keep filling our saddlebags so us good little jack asses with all of our high spirited claims can finally set down under the weight of that load, to the simple life of hailing and honoring "THE KING"

This is how THE SELF EXISTENT ONE finds out who is thirsty for HIM.

Folks open mouth insert foot when they ask THESE questions in a manner that shows they consider it generally real easy to answer.

Mike
@ Mike, you are the man!

What people (philosophically uneducated) do not understand is that there is no place for (seriously) doubting God's existence, God's existence is more than certain, His existence is philosophically 100 % proved. God's existence is precondition (preceded existence) of any possible existence, old Greeks knew that very well, because they were passionate thinkers. Anyone who engage his mind in deep philosophical thinking can not fail to find ultimate ontological truth which is that Absolute Being (as such) can not - not to be, the essence of Absolute Being is To Be, Absolute is the Essence, Absolute is Being!!!

It is just the matter of philosophical education, nothing more than that!

https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...l/slessenc.htm
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2014, 03:42 AM
mbrownn mbrownn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,296
To All

Guys, guys, guys

Its fine to quote from history, we need to know this. "know your history and you will know your future" I say paraphrasing, but don’t get caught up in debating it, that’s a distraction.

Philosophical Interlude
Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl - Philospher's Song - YouTube
Monty Python - Eric the Half-a-Bee (1972) - YouTube

Yes there is the east slowly swallowing up Africa, ask who? what? when? where? why? The answer to that is the start of the solution. Just one small who is George Soros, what is resources, where is everywhere now and why is global domination and power. GS has also financed the colour revolutions but remember he is just one of many.

AlCIAda (list of CIA and MI5 operatives) are all over the middle east, and are uneducated fanatics for the most part, operating uprisings to destabilise the rule of law/religion. Look who is financing and supplying them and for sure they are running them too.

CIA and MI5 plus the rest of the alphabet secret agencies all over the world, do not work for the government of their respective countries, and operate ouitside of law. We accept it, WHY? Who do they work for?

The Ukraine is now balkanized with the US and the former communist block squaring up for war.

I think these are worth spending more of our time on.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2014, 04:45 AM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
What people (philosophically uneducated) do not understand is that there is no place for (seriously) doubting God's existence, God's existence is more than certain, His existence is philosophically 100 % proved. God's existence is precondition (preceded existence) of any possible existence, old Greeks knew that very well, because they were passionate thinkers. Anyone who engage his mind in deep philosophical thinking can not fail to find ultimate ontological truth which is that Absolute Being (as such) can not - not to be, the essence of Absolute Being is To Be, Absolute is the Essence, Absolute is Being!!!

It is just the matter of philosophical education, nothing more than that!


"There is no God but Allah"
BOMBSHELL: Obama Wears Ring 30+ Years: 'There Is No God But Allah' - YouTube


Al
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2014, 10:11 AM
Ben2503 Ben2503 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
So Jaweh, Allah, the Lord are one and the same.
Nowadays there are scientist that claim that energy and god are the same.
So what is there left to fight about
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2014, 10:17 AM
cikljamas's Avatar
cikljamas cikljamas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 678
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrownn View Post
Guys, guys, guys

Its fine to quote from history, we need to know this. "know your history and you will know your future" I say paraphrasing, but don’t get caught up in debating it, that’s a distraction.

Philosophical Interlude
Monty Python Live at the Hollywood Bowl - Philospher's Song - YouTube
Monty Python - Eric the Half-a-Bee (1972) - YouTube

Yes there is the east slowly swallowing up Africa, ask who? what? when? where? why? The answer to that is the start of the solution. Just one small who is George Soros, what is resources, where is everywhere now and why is global domination and power. GS has also financed the colour revolutions but remember he is just one of many.

AlCIAda (list of CIA and MI5 operatives) are all over the middle east, and are uneducated fanatics for the most part, operating uprisings to destabilise the rule of law/religion. Look who is financing and supplying them and for sure they are running them too.

CIA and MI5 plus the rest of the alphabet secret agencies all over the world, do not work for the government of their respective countries, and operate ouitside of law. We accept it, WHY? Who do they work for?

The Ukraine is now balkanized with the US and the former communist block squaring up for war.

I think these are worth spending more of our time on.
We believe in Marx, Freud,and Darwin We believe everything is OK as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy’s OK. We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes UFO’s and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Muhammed, and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher though we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

We believe in Masters and Johnson What’s selected is average. What’s average is normal. What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors. And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good. It’s only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds, And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear

State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School! It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

We can sing a song but who are we going to worship, the sun (that shines) or God who is Light of the heavens and the earth?

Rejecting the beneficial transcendent moral authority of the Bible, which provides liberty with its necessary limits, with the immutable holy Creator as God, not the created, the objectively baseless morality of secularism promotes everyone doing what it right in his own eyes (contra. Dt. 12:8), resulting in the most morally confused generation America has ever raised, open to the ever morphing degrees of immorality, with gaining carnal pleasures, possessions and prestige being exalted, and leaders who "by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Rm. 16:18).

This paradigmatic change may be seen to have manifestly begun with the 60's sexual revolution, which the Left sees as a success, while we reap the fruits of its corruption. But Jesus does save sinners.

I can only remind us all once again to these words: The rule of law or not

From croatian Brodway:

"What is going to be with us tomorrow"

"Green meadow of our dreams" (of permanent world peace)
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2014, 11:57 AM
mbrownn mbrownn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by cikljamas View Post
We believe in Marx, Freud,and Darwin We believe everything is OK as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage. We believe in the therapy of sin. We believe that adultery is fun. We believe that sodomy’s OK. We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better despite evidence to the contrary. The evidence must be investigated And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes UFO’s and bent spoons. Jesus was a good man just like Buddha, Muhammed, and ourselves. He was a good moral teacher though we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn

We believe in Masters and Johnson What’s selected is average. What’s average is normal. What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament. We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors. And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good. It’s only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditions. Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds, And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear

State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School! It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

We can sing a song but who are we going to worship, the sun (that shines) or God who is Light of the heavens and the earth?

Rejecting the beneficial transcendent moral authority of the Bible, which provides liberty with its necessary limits, with the immutable holy Creator as God, not the created, the objectively baseless morality of secularism promotes everyone doing what it right in his own eyes (contra. Dt. 12:8), resulting in the most morally confused generation America has ever raised, open to the ever morphing degrees of immorality, with gaining carnal pleasures, possessions and prestige being exalted, and leaders who "by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple." (Rm. 16:18).

This paradigmatic change may be seen to have manifestly begun with the 60's sexual revolution, which the Left sees as a success, while we reap the fruits of its corruption. But Jesus does save sinners.

I can only remind us all once again to these words: The rule of law or not

From croatian Brodway:

"What is going to be with us tomorrow"

"Green meadow of our dreams" (of permanent world peace)
These days I believe nothing, I trust nothing, I know what I have learned and I know what is in my heart. The truth is, one must have an open mind in all things that you don't know, but don't believe it just because someone says it, because it may not be true. I'm not saying don't have faith, I'm saying don't have blind faith. I believe in humanity as it has demonstrated good, and I am calling on those who have seen what I have seen to speak to others, so that others can learn it themselves.

Now I have finished preaching the good will, lets get down to what makes a difference. I am not distracted. Don't comply with something that you know to be bad. Speak out against injustices and stand up for what is right. As I have pointed out before it is easy to do.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2014, 01:51 PM
aljhoa aljhoa is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben2503 View Post
So Jaweh, Allah, the Lord are one and the same.
Nowadays there are scientist that claim that energy and god are the same.
So what is there left to fight about
Psychopaths have a core emotional deficit –
they lack conscience, remorse, and guilt.
They just don’t feel feelings the way we do.
Several studies are documenting volume reductions in this brain structure in psychopaths.

Secrets of the Criminal Mind - Scientific American

Al
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2014, 02:11 PM
Ben2503 Ben2503 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by aljhoa View Post
Psychopaths have a core emotional deficit –
they lack conscience, remorse, and guilt.
They just don’t feel feelings the way we do.
Several studies are documenting volume reductions in this brain structure in psychopaths.

Secrets of the Criminal Mind - Scientific American

Al
How on earth did you get from religions to psychopaths?
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 04-28-2014, 05:02 PM
mbrownn mbrownn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,296
Politicians and world leaders have been shown to have psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies. Inbreeding, a common practice in the ruling elites, also causes this type of behaviour.

It may seem somewhat off the wall, but it is relevant.

Check out the history of the royal families. I think you may have heard of the behaviour of Caligula, if not check it out. naaay lass what a fine mare you are

Sociopaths are also more likely to be child abusers, check out British politics. This tenancy, if discovered by the elites, is then used as a method of control via blackmail. Often young politicians get huge financial backing from the elites, enabling them to get into power. Ask your self, when considering the very high incidence of paedophiles in the British political and legal systems, could the two be related?

I forgot to mention the catholic church

Last edited by mbrownn : 04-28-2014 at 05:07 PM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2014, 02:41 AM
BroMikey's Avatar
BroMikey BroMikey is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 430
Satanism

Quote:
Originally Posted by mbrownn View Post
Politicians and world leaders have been shown to have psychopathic and sociopathic tendencies. Inbreeding, a common practice in the ruling elites, also causes this type of behaviour.

It may seem somewhat off the wall, but it is relevant.

Check out the history of the royal families. I think you may have heard of the behaviour of Caligula, if not check it out. naaay lass what a fine mare you are

Sociopaths are also more likely to be child abusers, check out British politics. This tenancy, if discovered by the elites, is then used as a method of control via blackmail. Often young politicians get huge financial backing from the elites, enabling them to get into power. Ask your self, when considering the very high incidence of paedophiles in the British political and legal systems, could the two be related?

I forgot to mention the catholic church

The first thing a good high level satanist does is to find out what the order of GOD is and reverse it, so if God says a Man should be paied up with a woman then the Satanist seeks out forms of sex magick that violates THE LAW.

These Elite TELL us that they worship Lucifer. THEY TELL YOU THIS. They don't hide it. The masonic order emanates from Bohemian Grove near San Francisco where every year these Elite so called men go to bed with each other to gain power in the spirit.

I know what it sounds like and you are right, NUTS!!!

These Elite bring in other men from one of the largest gay cities in the world for servicing themselves in honor to their gOd Looie (Lucid) and most of all to directly flip of the ALMIGHTY to HIS FACE.

That is the whole point. Branch to the nose or stick it.

If a high level devil worshiper is going to gain wealth and position he must do whatever it takes to get it.

Drinking huge amounts of alcohol to imbalance the LAWS of the human Body and mind to keep proper order in the blood.

Whatever GOD says, do the opposite and you will have power.

God says don't have sex with your brothers and sisters so a good follower of the 33rd will seek to engage them.

God says men should not lay with other men so a good follower will find a boy friend and so on.

Just look for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12_PUYtkZBc


If folks can't find God then find these guys first then you will see.

Mike
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!Live Bookmark this Post!Google Bookmark this Post!Yahoo Bookmark this Post! share on MyspaceShare on FacebookTweet this thread
Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 04:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.0.0 RC8
2007 Copyright ? Energetic Forum? A Non Profit Corporation - All Rights Reserved