EPTUS government can publish what really happened.
Bush Conspiracy Video - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
poppa
United States329 Posts
US government can publish what really happened. | ||
Mynock
4492 Posts
See, you are saying that the Bible made you realize things about humanity you could never attain otherwise. Yet you state that the Bible is solely a western phenomenon, and as such explains the western world, and serves as a good guideline material for the western world. Deductively follows that in order to try to understand the whole world, one has to go beyond what one can find in their immediate vicinity. And that is the reason one has to study beyond the scope of the European "classics". Objectively, the ideal way to get a full view upon humanity and it's history would be to read an alien diary summing up the main events of the past few thousand years, compiled with scrutinity and without any bias whatsoever. Since that option is not an option to the best of my knowledge one has to try and refer to as broad a variety of sources as possible, and that means - if the topic at hand is religion - to know as much and about as many holy doctrines as possible, instead of trying to figure out how one of those in particular presents and explains itself. It is not just my choice because that's how I'd like it to be somewhere "deep in my heart", it's what reason dictates as a logical course of actions. You can like, praise and favour the western society with all it's teachings and heritage as much you want, it will not help you understand it fully unless you get a "second opinion". And that precisely is what the "other" gospels can help you with. It doesn't matter if you personally believe the Bible and the western thought to be superior to anything other continents have to offer, you only have to follow your own reasoning (from your previous post) to see how a far greater number of followers, a far deeper and more ancient heritage and amount of works and resources should tip the scales of preference away from the Bible. That is not to say that you should logically follow something else than you have chosen for yourself, no. It only follows that if indeed you are interested in knowing the truth behind the words of any religious gospel (as opposed to a choice based on the results at hand, namely the western society model) you cannot possibly limit your investigation on only one of them. And since every each one bears elements uncompatible with certain elements of others, one has to keep open the possibility of any such part certainly being dubitable at the very best. And I hope that explains what I meant by my original statement... -Mynock | ||
|
Kaotu
United States986 Posts
On March 27 2006 18:45 EntertainMe wrote: How can you believe Jesus is divine/GOD and His resurrection from death and yet fail to take a lot of the Bible seriously? You do not believe Jesus is God. That much I can tell from your post. Jesus' first miracle was turning water into a high quality wine. You know water? Turning into a wine? Obviously it's impossible. Science clearly denies it. Without faith, Bible is just another book. I suggest reading Karl Barth... I personally find myself in a lot of agreement with Barth, especially his views on the Bible (and actually, maybe you should read Warranted Christian Belief by Alvin Plantinga, which is imo one of the greatest Christian philisophical works and it is both very current and deals with the Word pretty strenuously). The idea (dumbed down, to fit into a post) is that the Word is not, and need not be, completely literal. After all, very few people if any hold that 'inspired' means 'God came down and wrote it with his hand'. It is God's message, but not a factual report on history. We do not hear about something such as, say, the ressurection and decide that if the historical evidences point to its factual existence, then we should believe it. Plantinga has shown that this way of dealing with Biblical authority runs into a LOT of problems with probabilty. Rather, if Christianity is true (which I hold that it is), then we come to believe in the Word through the "internal instigation of the Holy Spirit", meaning (dumbed down) that we hear of the ressurection and, through the Spirit, come to believe that this is in fact the Word of God. The power of the points compels us to listen. If this sounds weak to you, keep in mind that I have done no justice to Barth or Plantinga. But I do believe that this is consistent with the conversions that I have seen; people are compelled to believe in the power of Jesus' words, not because they align with history but rather because they find a power and a beauty that they simply cannot deny. That is not to say that I deny the Ressurection; but the purpose of the Bible is not to convey history, it is to convey God's message; to say that a literal interpretation of Genesis is necessary is pretty ridiculous imo. Moltke is right; there are a lot of simpletons who are Christians. You may debate such people and find yourself feeling rather smug at the dominance of your beliefs over theirs. But keep in mind that Christianity has survived a whole lot of history, and in the minds of many academics it still holds its integrity (and now with advancements in science and philosophy, perhaps Christianity, if true, is closer to reality now than it was a thousand years ago). I do not pass off atheists as 'godless heathens', and you should not pass off Christians as 'hopeful lunatics'. (This is not directed at the person I quoted). | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Should we also consider Greco-Roman paganism then, as the philosophical equal of Roman Catholicism? Never mind. You point as I see is that people should see from all perspectives (how?) to gain an objective undestanding of "truth." Objectively, this is not how human understanding operates. You can see it in the microcosms of human behaviour. A man from Poland will never love a mother from Nigeria as much as he loves his own mother, yet, if all things are equal, there is someone in Nigeria who loves that mother as much as the Polish man loves his. Besides the impossibility of understanding everyone, the fact is all understanding of the external world proceeds from self-understanding. The further we detach the object of our knowledge from self-understanding, the more abstract and meaningless it becomes. As the great French philosopher (Marxist-turned-Catholic) Simone Weil wrote: We can never reach the impersonal except through the personal, and the collective, never. Note that impersonal understanding is not the same as a collective understanding. We can never understand what is collective, but what is impersonal is always a relationship between the external world and ourselves. The ideal of objectivity, as I have stated many time before, is to extract the "self" from the understanding of the world, and in this sense, objectivity is contrary to the functions of human understanding. There is a good reason that we begin in grade 5 with Canadian history instead of devoting equal time to Japanese and German history, and an equally good reason that people who are born in Canada are inclined to think themselves for the rest of their lives, as Canadians. In academics, there are generalists and specialists, but whereas the generalists usually have the broader understanding of the general subject, their understanding is also shallower. Ideally, there is a 20/20 vision which allows us to see the objects nearer to ourselves more or less as they are, and the objects father from ourselves more or less less clearly, and beyond a certain point on the horizon, they can no longer see any details. A person who is so far-sighted that he can read from a mile away also cannot focus his eyes enough to see his surroundings. But what we have is the bible; and in the end, Christian theologians who study the Koran remain Christian, and Moslem theologians who study the Bible remain Moslem. So much for ideals about logic and objectivity uniting the human race. | ||
|
Mynock
4492 Posts
But what we have is the bible; and in the end, Christian theologians who study the Koran remain Christian, and Moslem theologians who study the Bible remain Moslem. So much for ideals about logic and objectivity uniting the human race. Well, we have the Bible, yes. Along with lots of other gospels (gospel, as in a "religious doctrine") that often contradict it. Now let's get this perfectly clear. If you have any reason to prefer the Bible over the other doctrines other than that it is "our own" and "it's teachings and the effects of those are to my liking" then please say so. I for one do not see how it should receive a preferential treatment as compared to other, older (trial of time, right?), and I dare to say, more consistent writings. Christian theologians who study the Koran remain Christian, and Moslem theologians who study the Bible remain Moslem. So much for ideals about logic and objectivity uniting the human race. Well, whoever said anything about objectivity ever uniting us humans? Ideals will remain ideals, let's leave it at that. My question is, I believe, pretty clear: Would you say the Bible is so much better of a work that it deserves preferential treatment when it comes to comparing it with other gospels? Would you say the differences in interpretations of the World Order as according to writings other than the Bible are meaningless when confronted with each other? Does Christianity and the Bible stand above other religions? If so, what is your reasoning other than you feel it is "your own"? Essentially, aren't you a believer because you want to know the answers to the existential questions? Or are you simply sympathetic with the Bible because the western society is the be-all of your interests? -Mynock | ||
|
nicetoknowyou15
Jamaica185 Posts
Jesus Christ ... (no pun) | ||
|
DTDominion
United States2148 Posts
| ||
|
FroST(TE)
United States909 Posts
mynock seriously, your a moron...why not back up your posts with articles from the enquierer - seriously. ploys explination of the collapse should have shut this thread up | ||
|
GabrielB
Brazil594 Posts
http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml | ||
|
lIlIlIlIlIlI
Korea (South)3851 Posts
| ||
|
GabrielB
Brazil594 Posts
Should I have created a new thread, so the first 5 people could find funny ways to tell me to use the "search function" and the sixth make an arrow pointing at the search box, proceeded by a few more praising his accuracy? | ||
|
Sun
United States551 Posts
| ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
The conspiracy theorists are so kook they wouldn't believe it was a plane driven into the pentagon by terrorists not under pay of the government if they were there to have seen it happen, so i don't think this will change much. For you people who believe the conspiracies, my position is still that you're an ignorant and worthless fuck and i hope you die in a fire. | ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On March 01 2006 10:22 Hot_Bid wrote: guys gusy this one time my friend saw someone PUKE on a <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.qklinkserver.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=69&k=poker%20table&st=1" onmouseover="window.status='Search for: poker table'; self.ql_skeyphrase='poker%20table'; if(window.event) self.ql_sevent=window.event.srcElement; self.ql_timeout = setTimeout('ql_doMouseOver(1)', 1500); self.ql_isOverLink=true; return true;" onclick="self.ql_isOverLink=true; ql_doMouseOver(1); self.ql_skeyphrase='poker%20table'; window.status='Search for: poker table';return false;" onmouseout="window.status=''; if(self.ql_timeout) clearTimeout(self.ql_timeout); self.ql_isOverTip = false; setTimeout('ql_closeiframe()', 1500); ">poker table</a>! it was so fucking crazy does anyone have any stories like this? like exactly the same story except with excruciatingly boring and extensive details? and i mean come on!!! CRAZY hot_bid for god next election! | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
On May 17 2006 20:05 Servolisk wrote: I was only reading the short posts in this thread :p But anyways, Camoot, I think you're an ignorant and worthless fuck and I hope you die in a fire. You're is actually as far opposite the truth as possible. You flame people trying to think stuff out and think they are the ones evidence is useful on? Please tell me then, under what circumstances would you be willing to believe there is something up? Believing that there is no conspiracy is what everyone would prefer to believe. This is hardly a discussion of UFO citings. As I've brought up every time this topic comes, their have been conspiracy theories of similar nature* in the past. Wiki Operation Northwoods, if you care. Damn right, Servolisk. I'm tired of people comparing a possible 9-11 cover up to UFO citings. The universe is a pretty big place after all. We are a earthcentric society; we used to think the sun revolved around earth, what happened to that proposition? It's only a matter of time until they prove there is life on other planets, and it's only classic American arrogance to think we're the most advanced life out there. From there, it's only a small, logical jump to UFOs. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
Servolisk
United States5241 Posts
| ||
|
camooT
United States1354 Posts
On May 17 2006 20:05 Servolisk wrote: I was only reading the short posts in this thread :p But anyways, Camoot, I think you're an ignorant and worthless fuck and I hope you die in a fire. You're is actually as far opposite the truth as possible. You flame people trying to think stuff out and think they are the ones evidence is useful on? Please tell me then, under what circumstances would you be willing to believe there is something up? Believing that there is no conspiracy is what everyone would prefer to believe. This is hardly a discussion of UFO citings. As I've brought up every time this topic comes, their have been conspiracy theories of similar nature* in the past. Wiki Operation Northwoods, if you care. I will listen to argument from informed individuals, not some crackpot sitting in front of a computer spending all day compiling into some half-baked video every arbitrary point which he feels is inconsistent with his uninformed idea of what ought to have happened if the officially reported events had really occurred - as if he had ANY idea what that might involve. A chip in the stone, essentially, does not reduce it to rubble. What stupifies me is your hypocrisy in challenging every aspect of officially reported events, while at the same time rarely questioning the arguments put forth in the movie. You swallow everything for fact, and then accuse us of the same. What differs us however, is our ability to discern credible sources from incredible ones. The movie is plagued with arguments supported only by an vague and arbitrary idea of scientific consensus -- Why shouldn't molten steel remain as hot buried under several layers of rubble without anywhere for heat to escape, for example? Did they consider that maybe the fire continued to burn under the rubble for several days after? I'm not arguing that the steel should've remained as hot, or I'd be making the same mistake as any crackpot, but that points made in this movie are often without any real support. A more persuasive and professional argument would have received regular citation... not something the researchers ever bothered to do even on their website. Not surprising I guess, considering how many inconsistencies they have: http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/ Oh, does that website only attack your precious conspiracy through statistically petty inaccuracies? Fight fire with fire, I say. It's hard going against facts, that's why. I mean wow, steel doesn't melt on 1k Fahrenheit, so huh, what now? Too difficult to comprehend :/ Head hurts. Let's just el oh el and go eat a hamburger! we don't do so for the very reason we aren't experts and can't be expected to research every point made. Instead, we happen to be intelligent enough to discern credible argument from vague, derivative bullshit. Our job is made only harder because the video has no real thesis to attack, and is only a collection of assorted inconsistencies regarding an event of international proportions involving millions of people. But there are people that do the research (see above), though I don't think if you swallow this shit they'll convince you. Probably not until they make a movie with catchy editing, anyway. The funniest thing I've seen in this thread is how many attribute the movie's credibility to its above average production values, as if that had anything to do with the quality of research. Just shows how easily fooled you are by appearances. | ||
| ||
