online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Compulsory Voting
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 63 (view)
 
Compulsory Voting
Posted: 3/4/2007 7:34:24 AM

You're talking about taking away the right to vote guaranteed in the Charter of Rights.
Uh...no. No, I'm not. Quite the opposite, actually...I'm talking about making sure our votes actually have weight.

The provinces aren't even going to consider the Charter unless it comes with Senate reform and a distinct society clause for Quebec. And that's what this "compulsory voting" idea is. A ruse to get Senate reform back on the table and chop up our constitution in the process.
Again, no. As I pointed out previously, voting is already considered a civic responsibility in Canada. I'm saying it should be enforced, is all.

Chiny, thanks for the link...I've just downloaded that pdf and will now read it. I've read the first couple of pages and it looks like a great resource. I suggest everyone read it. Then we can discuss this issue without resorting to hysterical accusations like someone wanting to take away our right to vote...


And I never said anything about "substantive" knowledge of the issues. Or that their "knowledge" was based on fact and not fiction.
The point I was trying to make (apparently very poorly) was simply that I'm just as happy to have the ignorant stay home on election day. Which is why I've also argued for a minimum understanding of the issues to be eligible to vote. Too bad it will never happen.
If people understood that it's ther civic duty to vote, i'm thinking some of them might decide it's also their duty to become informed. Not right away, obviously, but as people see that their voices do matter, they might actually start to care.
But, I agree with gerrymac in that a huge number of people who do vote now are ignorant. I think I gave the example earlier of the Christian Right's mobilization of their supporters to vote for their candidates.
I think there's a significant percentage who are informed and who don't vote....so, hopefully it'll balance out.


Apples and oranges. Last time I looked, paying taxes was an obligation, not a right.
Yes, and I'm saying that participating in the political process is also an obligation.
Paying taxes is a responsibility, but the services that they pay for you are entitled to as a right.
But the point was that failure to fulfill that obligation results in an infringment of your freedom, as i think that there should be a similar penalty for failure to vote. Not really apples and oranges at all....
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 55 (view)
 
Compulsory Voting
Posted: 2/26/2007 4:11:07 PM

Unless you think with the majority, your votes don't count.

Okay, but, and here's where I'm speculating, if 100% of the population voted, I think we'd see a severe shift in exactly what the majority vote was...

But, even if the Green Party doesn't get elected or win any seats, they can still see that their support is growing or ebbing by their percentage of the vote...

Or, in places where the winner isn't a raving lunatic, if the election is extremely close, the winner would know to watch his or her step and not hammer through policies that are unpopular.

I think your earlier point about representational government is valid, but would require a much more drastic series of reforms than compulsory voting would.
But, we're a parliamentary democracy, which isn't all that democratic really, considering policy is decided by people appointed by the leader, and your points about voting against the majority in your riding...
But mandatory voting is a step in the right direction, I think.

I also think we should have referenda on major issues, like going to war and such. But all that, I guess, is a separate issue...

BTW...the raving lunatic referrence was to President Junior, just to be clear...


But did you mean minority ruled democracy instead of dysfunctional democracy?
Well....maybe both apply.
I think a minority ruled democracy IS a dysfunctional democracy....

Its just amazing that so many people in the USA will
rather die than embrace compulsory voting. The disinformation must be very
powerful over there.

I don't get the fierce opposition to compulsory voting either...
Here's the weird thing...there isn't any disinformation about it here. There isn't any information, either. It's a non-topic in North America. I'm actually trying to figure out how to get the ball rolling here. Figuring out the right people to contact with some kind of organizational skills that I lack and whatnot. But first I need to present it coherently, which this forum is helping with (so, I'd like to thank everyone who's participated, be you for or against compulsory voting, all input helps). And it's weird, because a lot of the professional agitators and activists see it first as an infringment on their freedom. Which it may well be...but, as i said before, so is taxation, in that your freedom is infringed upon should you fail to fulfill your financial responsibilities...and everyone accepts this.

Hey, I just found this Citizen and Immigration Canada's website. They explain to new citizens what their responsibilities are:

understand and obey Canadian laws
participate in Canada’s democratic political system
vote in elections
allow other Canadians to enjoy their rights and freedoms
appreciate and help to preserve Canada’s multicultural heritage

Two of them involve participation in the political process, but they aren't enforced...the only two out of five that aren't enforced...why?

I apologise to anyone still reading for the length of this, but I'm going to make it longer by comparing that to something I found on a U.S. government website.

"Citizens of the U.S. can participate in their government This process insures that power will always remain where it belongs - with the people." (and that's worked out pretty well, hasn't it? )

"The most important right citizens have is the right to vote. By voting, the people have a voice in the government. The people decide who will represent them in the government. Before voting in an election, each citizen should be well informed about the issues and candidates." (These are kind of like suggestions. You really "should", but, you know, whatever...)

"The government may call upon citizens to serve on a jury. The members of the jury need to decide the case in as fair a way as they can." (This you had better damn well do, if we say so)

"Every person is expected to obey the laws of the community, state and country in which he or she lives. All Americans are expected to respect the rights of others. All persons living in the U.S. are expected to pay the income taxes and other taxes honestly and on time." (More stuff you have to do.)

I had more to say, but I'm extremely tired and my brain just screeched to a halt...
later, then...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 51 (view)
 
Compulsory Voting
Posted: 2/26/2007 2:47:57 AM
Dorionland, we've heard all about people's "right" to be lazy and not participate...But, what about your responsibilities to society and your country? Why should you have the rights of our society when you don't participate in it?

We are all already penalized when people don't participate in our democracies...because many politicians feel like they don't have to pay attention to public opinion very much and instead pay attention only to the people who matter, people with priviledge and lobbying groups...if they see that half the population doesn't care what they do, they'll do what they want...

I'm looking for a way to make them more accountable to the population. But that won't happen until we recognize our own responsibility in the process. And, evidentally, the only way to do that is to make people responsible...

Until then, we have a disfunctional democracy...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 46 (view)
 
Compulsory Voting
Posted: 2/21/2007 11:10:43 PM

See that's where you're wrong.
I can't be wrong. I was expressing my opinion. And I correctly expressed what my opinion was. Therefore, I'm right...

This isn't the Soviet Union or Communist China where people have to discuss politics in the workplace.
I was never suggesting it was or should be, nor am I sure that either place was like that...


We have the RIGHT to do those things. The right to free expression, the right to free assembly and the right to vote. And we also have the right to say nothing, and not to participate.
Really? What if you decide to not participate in paying your taxes? Most people seem willing to participate in fulfilling their financial obligations to society and government and fellow citizens and are aware of and accept the consequences of non-compliance...if you decide not to participate in your job, you usually get fired. Or jury duty... There are many accepted instances where failure to participate is penalized. So why not penalize failure to participate in a functioning democracy? Consider this...

Standing up, and voicing your opinion, is a necessary part of being empowered. Each voice adds to the chorus, and the message grows.

and the chorus isn't very loud when half the population sit gathering dust. People who don't vote hurt us all.
Some might say it's criminal.

Hey, you'd still have the right to not participate. But you'd have to accept the consequences. And if your opposition to that kind of civic responsibility is really based on principles of liberty and freedom, you'd be willing to accept them, right?

But, I'll concede to this...loss of citizenship is probably too harsh...or at least very unrealistic...so, I now favour some kind of tax break. Or a fine. Or, raise taxes and then offer the tax break to voters.
That ain't so bad, right? I mean, if you really didn't want to vote based on principles, you'd be willing to miss out on a tax break, wouldn't you?

I also want to say that if you don't vote because you feel it's a useless waste of time, which is basically why I haven't voted in 10 years, it only is because half the population agree with you and also don't vote.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Compulsory Voting
Posted: 2/17/2007 9:23:11 AM
I think it's very telling that everyone who's posted here who live in a country with compulsory voting support it and don't see it as an infringement.

Post 30...quoting the Charter, where voting is defined as a right...I know, that should change, was my point.
It should be a legal obligation.

And, I don't subscribe to the view that voters should be rewarded with some prize. The reward should be a better future. And I feel that if your don't participate in civilization, you're not a citizen. You don't get rewarded for fulfilling an obligation. We are not children.

Also, to CountIbli, your libertarian candidate needs to know of your support, even if they're not elected. For example, the Green Party in Canada has been gaining a larger portion of the vote, even though most people feel they have no chance of getting in. Imagine how they'd do if all the people who don't bother to vote because they have no chance of getting in voted. Or, if none of their supporters voted because they felt that way. They'd give up and remove that option from play, probably.

And yes, much of the population is either apathetic and/or un- or mis-informed. And forcing them to vote may have large amounts of people making bad decisions. But, how is that any different from how things are currently? Bush, for instance, was elected in large part due to the mobilization of the Christian Right and their fan base. The people who send their paychecks to people like Pat Robertson. Those people are pretty misinformed, and yet they vote.

And I agree with those who've said that compulsory voting would be the kick in the pants that some people need to stop being apathetic. Which, I think would be better overall, if more people started feeling like they were a functioning, integral part of society.

And, government policy may start to reflect the will of the population more, which it currently doesn't. And it would also be more legitimate, which it really isn't.

In North america, the concept of a social contract is almost non-existent. And civil responsibility seems to be limited to waving a flag and standing during the national anthem. So, it would take a bit of work to orient the citizenry to this line of thinking, but it could be done. The government can do propaganda. Look at smoking and drinking and driving campaigns and things of that nature.

What I find surprising is that there appears to be no organized advocacy group supporting mandatory voting in Canada or the United States. Britain, at least, has the Fabian Society, who appear to support it, although I'm basing that on a google search since they're website won't load right now.

I found a government document of polls done regarding election reform, and more people were against compulsory voting than for it, but not by much. And god knows what the public perception of it is since it's never discussed. If we see commercials telling us it's our civic duty, will we start to believe it?

The federal government should make it law, and then the provinces can decide how to enforce it. Or the states. That would go down easier, I think.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Compulsory Voting
Posted: 2/13/2007 5:50:30 PM
Okay, right now there are measures within both the Canadian and American systems that basically limit democracy, that were put in place exactly for that purpose. And the aim was to protect those with priviledge. But...and I don't think anyone can disagree with this analysis...what happened is that those with priviledge have ended up exploiting and abusing those measures. I think compulsory voting would help end that.
Also, especially in the U.S., there a huge discrepancy between public opinion and government policy.


but losing your citizenship is pretty harsh
Maybe, but it depends how much importance you place on it. Or how you define it. I think it's a right and an obligation. It's not a priviledge. Thinking that it is is why Bush can make people believe his goal was to bring democracy to Iraq.


A "non-vote" is in a sense a vote.
Except it's not counted. There would have to be, obviously, if voting became manditory, an abstentation option on the ballot. I believe it's Australia (could be somewhere else) where if the "none-of-the-above" choice wins, they hold another election. Imagine that...being able to say we don't like any of the choices, and it's legally binding...

It's obvious to me that the current political recipe for our countries is not equipped to deal with issues effectively. Our leaders are too preoccupied with protecting priviledge and power to pay much attention to the public good. Look at, for example, Harper's national target for cutting emissions from 45-60% by 2050...what the hell good is that? Although, there's a lot of unusual activity involving enironmental policy right now and we'll have to wait till the dust settles before judging how effective his measures will be. Or Bush and his invasion...did anyone in the U.S. really want that other than him and his people? Yet he's diverting every available resource into the financial gaping hole that is Iraq...and the people who benefit from all this don't pay for it, the bulk of the population do. Would that be going on if evryone really had a say?


In the States we have a group that feel most should not vote.
Yeah, the Republicans...we know...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Compulsory Voting
Posted: 2/12/2007 7:47:50 PM
Should Canada (and this is open to Americans, too)...Should we have manditory voting?

I mean, you can't say you have a functioning democracy when only half the population participates.

Is voting in an election a right, a priviledge or an obligation?

I think it should be manditory and one looses their citizenship if they don't fulfill their responsibilities as a citizen.

I'm short of time right now, and I'll post more thoughts later, but I wanted to get this rolling and hear some other thoughts on the subject...

Oh, by the way, I haven't voted in about 10 years...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 51 (view)
 
Iranian Pesident Challenges Bush...
Posted: 9/3/2006 9:48:25 AM
What does everyone think? Publicity stunt? Ignoratio elenchi (i.e. Red Herring)? A Genuine offer?

It's all three simultaneously...A genuine offer, he wants it to happen... Ahmadinejad probably saw that he came off looking good on 60 Minutes, looked at any footage of Prez Bush and came to the conclusion that he'd have Junior sputtering, stammering and gibbering within the first two minutes.
PR stunt and red herring...he knows the Boy President will never agree to a debate. Which in itself makes him look bad...weak, afraid. He has no clue what's going on in the world aside from what his select few advisors choose to tell him. And the decision makers at the White House know it would be a total catastrophy for Bush's image, so they'd never let him. It would go like this: Ahmadinejad would spend his time eloquantly pointing out a bunch of talking points that they don't want on Fox News, followed by a minute or two of Bush with a nervous grin and that disconcerted "deer-caught-in-the-headlights" expression that he does so well as he stutters through one of his pre-packaged speeches that avoids addressing anything meaningful or relevant.
I mean, look at the first Kerry/Bush debate...his every response consisted of variations of "What?! That's crazy! I can't even respond to that because I can't even believe I heard you say it!" I'm paraphrasing...Junior's responses were more of a combination of sounds, facial expressions and hand gestures, but the point was made...


Lets keep the responses respectful. This is a hot issue, so lets try not to let emotional arguments and 'flame wars' take over.
I just thought that might need repeating...


All I need to know about Islam I learned on 9-11.....
I hope you're not really a cop...it's just, I think we're in a sad state if that's the level of deductive reasoning and investigative procedure that law enforcement practices...


As to the usual attempts at comparing the Islamic terrorists to the crusades...(1200 years ago? ) ....
If you are going to make an analogy attempt... do some homework! Look at the facts.


Okay, let's do that. Islam, pre-crusades, was a peaceful and tolerant religion. They lived side by side with Jews and Christians. They tolerated non-Muslems as long as they believed in a god, which was bad news for atheists, but anyway. They even made an exemption for Buddhists, more or less judging Buddha to be their god, so that they could go about in peace. (Christianity still hasn't reached that level of tolerance today. They still think followers of other faiths are going to hell.) Their society was culturally much more advanced and civilized than the Christian world at that time, who were little better than barbarians. Christians came and slaughtered everyone in Jerusalem: Muslem, Christian and Jew, and taught Islam the real meaning of religious fanaticism and bloodlust. While Christianity's association with Islamic culture in the period following actually helped western society become more civilized...
And, it's not an analogy, it's history. History that's contributed to the current situation. The dynamics have not changed that much in some people's view in over 1000 years. I suspect Bush even still sees it this way...remember his abruptly retracted unfortunate characterization of the war against the Taliban as a "crusade"? Oops, that faired poorly with the test audience....
"If you ignore history, you're condemned to repeat it"...Nobody says this anymore. Because our society has no memory. Events always happen in a bubble with no context.
We used to accuse the USSR of rewriting history. We do that too, but mostly we just forget it...
That's why the reaction to 9/11 in America was shock and surprise. Anyone with a knowledge of history wasn't.


Those type of posts seem to me, to be american bashing.
They're not. They're criticizing an arrogant and unsophisticated foreign policy. There's plenty about the US that I like. Their current leadership and how their governments have behaved globally in the past are things I don't like.


it's so much easier for him to send your family members over to Iran to kill whoever won't listen to him, as well as cut down on the Social-Security burden at the same time. Ah hah, Bush is smarter than you think. He's getting rid of the poor and protecting the rich.
Has anybody done a comparison of reconstruction efforts in Iraq and New Orleans? I'd be interested in seeing where their interests are...


This accounts for the tremendous pro-Hezbollah, anti-Israel propaganda effort in the last two months. To add to that ALL of the Muslim leadership in Canada , all the Arab and Muslim groups have made statements supporting Hezbollah and denouncing Israel.
What? I don't get it...are they supposed to thank Israel for bombing their homes and killing their loved one? Are we only supposed to denounce violence and terror when the weapons aren't supplied by the US? What would make you happy?

marita...I totally agree. Iran has right on their border a perfect example of what happens to a country that doesn't have nuclear weapons. And they also see that Bush won't touch North Korea with a ten foot pole. Nuclear weapons are a deterant to foreign aggression, no doubt about it. So, Iran sees the US drawing a circle around them, they might be getting nervous and want some insurance.
And, I've always had a problem with this attitude, that other's don't deserve nuclear technology. I'm conflicted...because I don't think anyone should have nuclear technology, but, it does seem hypocritical to with-hold it. Like a parent refusing a child some candy, slapping their hand when they try to get it themselves. I know I'd be pissed off if I were Iran...
which I'm not....I'm much, much slimmer...

Really...alternate energy sources...if the US would be more proactive in helping to develope something they could offer Iran instead of nuclear energy...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 61 (view)
 
Should governments negotiate with terrorists?
Posted: 9/2/2006 4:46:01 AM

Hamas entered into a unilateral cessation of armed conflict, a one sided and self imposed ceasefire beginning in Feb 2005 ... well before achieving their unexpected political victory of the democratically held Palestinian elections in early 2006.

Instead of capitalizing on this as a watershed moment in the moderation of Hamas, and seizing it as a political opportunity; Israel and the West instead chose the path of conducting a punative campaign of collective punishment against all Palestinians by erecting an economic blockade in efforts to destabilise any forward progress of Hamas. The West layed a virtual economic seige against the OT which resulted in shortages in food and medicines necessary for the basic wellbeing and survival of their children.

I'm wondering if the west's declared faith in democracy is going to falter...they'll discover that in a lot of countries, parties are going to be elected that do not have western interests as a platform. Hamas' election must have been a wake-up call for the west...at the very least, they realize that they must spend more time in manipulating the democratic process in eastern countries...

Never, under any circumstances, negotiate with anyone that uses violence against innocent civilians. Doing so only opens you up for more of the same. Negotiations, in a very real way, validate terrorism.
By that definition, no country should negotiate with the US...sure, they don't deliberately target actual civilians, but, when they lay waste to a city or town, they accept and expect a certain amount of "collatoral damage", which to me amounts to the same thing. "We just meant to blow up the house, not the people inside..." Not to mention that Bush has shown the inclination to invalidate certain treaties that are inconvenient to his plans....

By the way, did you know that infidel is an English word derived from Latin through French and means 'one who is not a Christian or who opposes Christianity'?

And it was used 2000 years ago by Christians who opposed the Roman Empire...
History repeating...
The early Christians were terrorists. Granted, they didn't have bombs. But, they did start riots and the Romans saw them as a threat to the social order. They were perceived as suicidal fanatics, with a crazed desire for rewards in the afterlife that made them ripe for martyrdom, and no one listened to what they wanted. For 300 years, they were killed for the amusement of Roman citizens until a pagan emperor decided to negotiate with them.
Our media and politicians lack important things: memory and context. It's far easier to make your point when you pretend that events happen in a bubble, unconnected to the larger picture. For years, the west saw the east as their playground, reconfiguring borders and supporting brutality when it served their interests to do so. But this never happened, as far as the official record is concerned.

And hunting down terrorists has made America less secure. Bush has spread his resources so thin that any national emergencies will not be responded to. Look at New Orleans. Had that been a terrorist attack instead of a hurricane, the response would have been no different.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Should governments negotiate with terrorists?
Posted: 8/24/2006 12:58:35 PM
It's true that many but not all terrorists use their interpretation of their religion as a rallying banner for recruits...just like Bush does. But, how effective would that be if the social, economic and political reality was different? Not very, is my guess.

Personally, I wish the terrorists would try a much different tactic...namely political assassination. Yes, fewer innocents dead. And, I think that would be far more effective. I mean, wouldn't our leadership be more open to discussions if it were their lives at risk rather than ours? Junior doesn't seem to value other people's lives very much, but he obviously values his own. I think he'd change his tune...

Related: Yesterday, Canadian Liberal MP Borys Wrzesnewskyj was forced to resign his post for daring to suggest that he thought Canada should be more open to entering discussions with hezbollah as the only way to help stabilize the region. The Conservative government's response was to start insinuating anti-semetism and likening Hezbollah to Nazis, which scared the crap out of the opposition Liberals, especially those making a bid for party leadership. Paul Martin really did a good job of castrating that party after he replaced Chretien...none of them have balls now...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 28 (view)
 
ZERO POINT ENERGY & VACUUM ENERGY: Potential viable options
Posted: 8/24/2006 12:33:24 PM

Fnord, Laurence Gardner is NOT a shape shifting reptoid/reptilian.

I saw him lecture once, and he really didn't seem like one...but, if he can shapeshift...I guess he wouldn't...

And, how do I know that YOU aren't a shape-shifting reptilian? Apparently you can assume the form of a grail or a snake, so, what gives?


Follow up and read the refered to articles the book referes to.
Well, I did that to some extent, except my local library (where I got Lost Secrets from) was seriously lacking. And then I had to return it, so I don't have immediate access to his bibliography, which indeed was extensive. I own his other books but only one even mentions ORME.

Which I why I tend to not believe that it's all a marketting scam, as jjl9067 suspects...because it really does seem, if you read his books chronologically, that his research has led him to his conclusions. Also, his historical interpretations seem to make a lot of sense...


Check out the scientists mentioned.
Do you by any chance have the book and could name some of them. Because I will check them out, if I knew who they were. I'd also like to be able to verify whether Hudson was able to cure AIDS and cancer patients with it, as he claims, which would be remarkable enough, even if the Zero Point Energy claims lead nowhere.

Gardner, incidentally, mentioned in that lecture that NASA scientists are working on a warp engine using ORME, or something similar, but I can't find a darned thing about that anywhere, other than the usual sources, which usually originate with Hudson. Anyone heard or know anything about this?

And he also said that GE was working on a fuel cell with it. But never says if that actually leads anywhere. And again, all sources seem to originate with the usual suspects...


if he's using powdered gold as he claims there is a risk of metal toxicity
That's one of the things I was hoping to have cleared up, because the claim is that white powdered gold is classified as "exotic matter" because all the metal elements are removed. So it doesn't belong to any existing category. I want to know if this is true.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 23 (view)
 
ZERO POINT ENERGY & VACUUM ENERGY: Potential viable options
Posted: 8/23/2006 1:28:49 PM

Nope didn't miss it. It doesn't apply to the discussion though

Oh, yeah...thought of that afterwards...

The website you gave as references contains papers that discuss basic chemistry and theoretical physical properties of matter.
Do you mean the references I gave? Cause I have to admit that it was a little too technical for me to follow fully, so I'm damned if I know whether it proved anything or not...


Junk science. This is pop-science-fiction used for marketing purposes as far as I can tell.

This is what I'm afraid of. It'd be great if it wasn't. Some have claimed that it's been suppressed by the Department of Defense in collarboration with industries protecting their interests, but....still, there should be something available if it's legitimate...

And I'm very confused by the starlingly high number of websites I found claiming that Gardner is a shape-shifting reptilian entity working for the Illuminati....what the hell goes on?
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Should governments negotiate with terrorists?
Posted: 8/23/2006 12:17:11 PM
That said, if a country commits terrorism by proxy, ....should it be surprised if it gets some back in return?

That's exactly why many people across the planet's reaction to 9/11 was "Well, now you know how it feels..."

It's true, what you're saying...the term "terrorist" seems to apply only to those whose goals are contrary to western interests.

And, I keep hearing "the terrorists don't want to negotiate anyway", which, to me, seems like a bloody lame excuse to not even try.


Though this policy seems to have resulted in many terrorist organizations wanting to inflict damage through body counts, which is an area that they truly don't have a whole lot of a proven track record in (as relates to western nations).


Yeah, I'm always confused by the differences between acceptable and unacceptable forms of warfare. Why is pushing a button and obliterating thousands considered civilized warfare? Yet, killing yourself to blow up maybe a hundred people is considered savage and cowardly. Doesn't seem too damned cowardly to me...Is it because we can't see the bodies buried beneath the rubble, so it looks nicer on the evening news?


1947 -- 1948. Over 700,000 Palestinian Arabs were uprooted from their homes and land, and forced to live in refugee camps on Israel's borders. They have been denied the right to return to their homes. They have been refused compensation for their homes, orchards, farms and other property stolen from them by the Israeli government. After their expulsion, the "Israeli Forces" totally obliterated (usually by bulldozing) 385 Arab villages and towns, out of a total of 475. Commonly, Israeli villages were built on the remaining rubble.

You can see why Islamic terrorists are of the opinion that Israel has no right to exist, given this and every other of their terrorist acts you detailed. It's easy to demonize them when you view everything without any context, which is how we're all expected by our leaders to view it.
Germany has apologized for the Hollocaust. Has Israel ever taken responsibility for its brutal repression of Palestine? Or been held accountable by the western democracies for their blatant disregard for the numerous UN resolutions passed that have condemned them? No. It's an undeniable double standard that really should be addressed, but won't be as long as the US is ruled by a believer Biblical prophesy...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Should governments negotiate with terrorists?
Posted: 8/23/2006 9:22:29 AM
Well, when the USSR were the bad guys, we were told that they were crazy and wanted to take over or destroy the world too. But our governments negotiated with them. And the result was an end to that particular cold war.

What you all seem to see as an irrational hatred and/or insane bloodlust I see as a predictable reaction to years of western interference and exploitation of their countries, often by propping up and supplying brutal dictators because they represented some kind of stability. They also see the brutality of Israel being ignored by the west, an obvious double standard. And the terrorists use the means they have available to fight back, because they can't bomb their enemies from the safety of a plane.

Listen, this War on some Terror is only creating more terrorists. To the masses of the middle east, who see their cities destroyed, their citizens imprisoned without trial, tortured and humiliated, isn't bin Laden being proven correct, whatever his true motivations are? Terrorist recruitment is increasing, not decreasing. It only helps their cause.

Many of you have said they're only doing it to get their message across....but, who would listen otherwise? Some have said that if we negotiate with them, it will just encourage more terrorists. Well, not negotiating with them really seems to be working as far as discouraging them, doesn't it?

I really think they want a dialogue. They want their grievances addressed. I think it would seriously cut down on terrorist activity.

Think about this: to the British empire, American Revolutionaries were terrorists. Imagine if they had the technological might that the west has now. And really, it was the compassion of the British generals on the ground that won the revolution. Many times, the British could have followed the revolutionary army and destroyed them, but were content to merely drive them off...imagine if they had viewed them as inhuman "towelheads" insane with bloodlust, deserving only of obliteration. America would be very different today....
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Should governments negotiate with terrorists?
Posted: 8/22/2006 10:40:09 AM
I brought this up in another thread a while back which turned evil and apparently was deleted.

I think governments should negotiate with terrorist organizations. Find out what they want and see if there's some way to calm them down.

Western government claim that negotiating with terrorists only legitimizes them. But, I fail to see how declaring war on them doesn't do that.

Governments always end up negotiating with their enemies. It's the only way that peace is reached. Other than total obliteration. Which in this case seems impossible. The war just pisses off people in the parts of the world you're bombing and many of them become terrorists, because they can't fight back with methods acceptable to the west, as they lack to technology, they willl use whatever methods they have available. The only possible result as I see it is perpetual war. Which benefits defense contractors and no one else.

If not negotiation, what other solution is there?
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 33 (view)
 
Is Science a bueauracracy?
Posted: 8/22/2006 10:15:39 AM

But what you've identified, I think, is that both science and religion are guided in some ways by bureaucratic processes - that they're ruled by the same human social dynamics. The same could be said of businesses, or of your local PTA. They're similar in that they are endeavors taken on by organizations of humans. It's certainly not true to say that they are therefore the same thing.


Yeah, that was the gist of my OP, I guess. I realize that science as an ideal is not a religion. That they have similar goals at times but are essentially different things. Many people who responded failed to see that I was talking about the people and organization and as you say, the bueauracracy. And, as you point out, this is a trait of anything that's organized. I work for a bueauracracy, and it really does take a while for it to adapt to new data and information. Everything that they say is wrong, is wrong, until the bureaucratic heirarchy proclaims that it no longer is. Which is usually at a point where the new data is no longer valid. But that's municipal workings for you...


Because science must continually support its models with experiment and hard data, and integrate new information as it is discovered, even unpopular truths (or, more accurately, more consistent theories) ultimately prevail, even when they are initially opposed by the old men of their fields.

And in many cases, science has moved on while that mainstream laymen opinion has not. The masses take a while to catch up.

Hilbert, you've really made sense of this topic. Thanks.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 30 (view)
 
Is Science a Religion?
Posted: 8/21/2006 10:41:17 AM
they dont have the same purpose.

Yes they do, they both attempt to explain our existence and the result of the organization of both belief systems is the same: Heretics are ridiculed, viciously attacked and marginalized.
I was reading of a geologist who determined that the Sphinx in Giza had erosion patterns consistent with rainfall, not desert winds. (it was verticle, not horizontal) Which meant that it was carved much earlier than the pyramids, in pre-dynastic times. But, the Egyptologist community flat out rejected this finding because it didn't conform to their belief that the Sphinx was built by the pharoah Khafe, who built the great pyramid.

Also, the case of Indian antiquities curator of the National Museum, Thomas Lee, who made the heretical discovery in 1954 of an early human settlement on Manitoulin Island in Lake Huron, complete with tools, which dated to between 65,000 and 125,000 years ago, which didn't correspond to scientific theory of human antiquity in North America at that time. The scientific community blocked his ability to publish his findings, took advantage of access to media to discredit his findings, buried his artefacts in the basement of the museum and finally, lost his job. So to did Dr. Jacques Rousseau, the director of the museum, who had supported Lee.

There are many cases where evidence is buried when it doesn't support the opinions of the hierarchy of the mainstream science community and heretics exiled.

A nuclear physicist aquaintance of mine recently pointed out to me that scientists really are beholden to a bigger religion than mainstream science, one that we all believe in: Money.

They will attack tooth and nail any theories that threaten their funding and livelihood.

And I find the same amount of closed-minded adherence to beliefs amongst proponents of orthodox science as I do amongst fundamentalist Christians. And that's a boring and sad way to be, in my opinion.

Nedly: That would explain the attitudes of my cats, who do appear to belief that they are gods, with all the associated perks and privileges...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 176 (view)
 
Was Jesus Christ the Son of God... or God Himself?
Posted: 8/21/2006 10:12:44 AM

other versions on the other hand, have lost entire verses in translation.

Could that possibly be because those "lost" verses were not in the originals, but rather later additions to promote the assumptions and beliefs of Pauline Christians?
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 20 (view)
 
ZERO POINT ENERGY & VACUUM ENERGY: Potential viable options
Posted: 8/21/2006 10:06:17 AM
Okay, looking into gold nanoparticles, I see that they are not the same thing as monatomic elements. So, here's a collection of articles from various "respected" scientific sources, collected by nuclear physicist Dan ward, who's into the weird and unusual:
http://halexandria.org/dward477.htm

with links to other information of less "credible" distinction...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 19 (view)
 
ZERO POINT ENERGY & VACUUM ENERGY: Potential viable options
Posted: 8/21/2006 12:02:56 AM

Until I see some better sources on the subject, I'd file this under the "junk science" category.


Better sources? Go back to those sites you mentioned and do a search for "gold nanoparticles". I just searched for ionic gold and found gold nanoparticles instead. And then I googled that and found a whole bunch of "credible" and "respected" science sites with articles about it. I haven't delved into them too much, and the few I looked at had more to do with cancer research and the nanoparticles resonance with human DNA, so I don't honestly know if there's anything on zero point energy. And I'm not absolutely positive that these nanoparticles and ORME are one and the same thing.

See, the problem here is that it was discovered occuring naturally by a farmer, who wasn't any kind of scientist, so he wasn't really into writing papers on his discoveries and to hear him speak, he sounds like a crazed new-ager. But that's because his claims are fantastic and he's as astounded and excited about it as anyone.

I read that essay you gave the link to. And the guy is just stating his opinion and demonstrating a fondness for the word "ridiculous" and I love his final claim that science should be objective except in cases where the Bible is referenced as a historical document. I've seen lots of this stuff. Dogmatic types who seem offended by what they don't agree with.

It's unfortunate that most references to this stuff seem to come from one source. I was hoping someone had some others. So, I shall just have to look into this gold nanoparticles thing...

And, you may have missed it in my lengthy post, but I am using this gunk now, and have noticed almost immediate improvements in my health, including the complete eradication of a cyst I've been plagued by for a few years. So, I can't say bugger-all about the posibility of free energy, but I can say that pus filled lump is gone...! "Junk science", you say?
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 164 (view)
 
Was Jesus Christ the Son of God... or God Himself?
Posted: 8/20/2006 11:05:04 AM

The scriptures testify that Jesus, the temporal creator of this earth did indeed have a Father in heaven, whom he prayed too and who's will he was sent to accomplish.

The scriptures testify to that...Jesus never did...

And don't all Christians call God the Father? Don't all y'all say the Lord's Prayer? Does this mean everyone is the sons and daughters of God?

And forgive me, but what by the jiggling belly of Buddha is this "Jesus the temporal creator of this earth" gibberish supposed to mean? That isn't in the Bible. You just made that up!

I won't even go into the illogic of using the Bible to prove the Bible...that's like saying Fox News must be true because they say they are...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 14 (view)
 
ZERO POINT ENERGY & VACUUM ENERGY: Potential viable options
Posted: 8/20/2006 10:51:45 AM
Have any of y'all heard of ORME, Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements? It's refered to as white powder gold, or other platinum based metals, in a monatomic high-spin state, which takes the form of a fine white powder and it's available from various internet sites as a dietary supplement claiming amazing rejuvenative qualities. Discovered in the Arizona desert just over a decade ago by David Hudson and championed by researcher Laurence Gardner...

The following is from http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/lostark.html but there are very many other sources you can google...forgive me for the lengthy quote, but I lack the scientific knowledge to distill this information into a sensible summary.

"In 1996, the story of this initial discovery was reported in NEXUS articles by the Phoenix, Arizona, crop farmer David Hudson [see 3/05-6]. He explained that his soil suffered from a high sodium content, which caused the surface to be hard and impenetrable by water. To combat this (back in 1976), he was injecting sulphuric acid into the ground so as to break down the crust to a manageable consistency, but, on testing soil constituents that were not dissolved by the acid, he found that one particular material had a most unusual quality. When heat-dried in the Arizona sun, it would flare into a great blaze of white light and totally disappear. Under spectroscopic analysis, however, the substance registered as "pure nothing"!

Following unsuccessful tests at Cornell University, a sample was sent to Harwell Laboratories in Oxfordshire, England, for neutron activation analysis, but even they could not obtain a suitable reading. Eventually, with assistance from the Soviet Academy of Sciences, it was determined that the mysterious, glowing white substance was composed entirely of platinum group metals in a form hitherto unknown to science.

In the course of continued research, the material was regularly heated and cooled, with a resultant fluctuation in its gravitational weight. It was also discovered that, at a certain temperature, the white bead would fall apart to become a monatomic (single atom) powder--at which point its weight fell dramatically to 56% of its starting weight. Further heating at 1160º centigrade then transformed the precious substance into a wonderfully clear glass, at which point the material weight returned to its original 100%. It was seemingly impossible, but it happened time and time again!

Totally bewildered, the scientists continued their investigations. When they repeatedly heated and cooled the sample under inert gases, they found that the cooling processes took the sample to an amazing 400% of its starting weight; but when they heated it again, they found it weighed less than nothing--way below zero. When they removed the sample from the pan, they discovered that the pan actually weighed more than it did with the material in it, and they perceived that the sample had the ability to transfer its weightlessness to its supporting host. In other words, even the pan was levitating! This was precisely in accordance with the old Alexandrian alchemical text which had discussed the golden Paradise Stone over 2,000 years before: that the material could outweigh its original quantity of gold, but, when transposed to powder, even a feather would tip the scales against it.

The substance was also determined to be a natural superconductor with a null magnetic field, repelling both north and south magnetic poles, while having the ability to levitate and store any amount of light and energy within itself.

At that stage of development, David Hudson met with Dr Hal Puthoff, Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Austin, Texas. In his research into zero-point energy and gravity as a zero-point fluctuation force, Puthoff had determined that when matter begins to react in two dimensions (as Hudson's samples were doing), it should theoretically lose around four-ninths of its gravitational weight. That is about 44%, precisely as discovered in the white powder experiments.

Hudson was therefore able to confirm Puthoff's theory in practice, explaining that when entering a superconductive state the monatomic powder registers only 56% of its starting weight; also, that when heated it can achieve a gravitational attraction of less than zero--at which point, the weighing-pan also weighs less than it did when empty.

Since gravity determines space-time, Puthoff concluded that the powder was "exotic matter" and was capable of bending space-time.

However, the mfkzt powder would then be resonating in a different dimension, under which circumstance it should become totally invisible. Again, Hudson confirmed that this was precisely the case: the sample certainly did vanish from sight when its weight disappeared.

What was being said here was not simply that the substance could be moved out of perceptual vision, but that it was literally transported into an alternative parallel plane--a fifth dimension of space-time. The proof of this was ascertained by attempting to disturb and scoop the substance with spatulas while it was invisible, so that it would be positioned differently when it returned to a visible state. But this did not happen, and the substance returned to precisely the same position and shape as last seen. Nothing was moved or disturbed in the invisible interim, because it had not been there. In short, it was not invisible: it had actually altered its physical state and had transposed into another dimension.

Dr Puthoff explained that this was like the difference between a conventional stealth aircraft, which cannot be detected by radar, and one that can literally disappear into another dimension.

This, then, is the superconductive dimension of the Orbit of Light or, as the Egyptian tomb records called it, the Field of Mfkzt.

In the early 1990s, articles concerning stealth atoms and superconductivity began to appear with great regularity in the science press. The Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen as well as the US Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratories in Chicago and its Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee all confirmed that the elements discovered by Hudson certainly existed in the monatomic state. These included gold and the platinum group metals: iridium, rhodium, palladium, platinum, osmium and ruthenium.

When filing his patents, Hudson had the substances classified as Orbitally Rearranged Monatomic Elements (ORMEs), and the scientific terminology to describe the monatomic phenomenon is "asymmetrical deformed high-spin". The substances are superconductors because high-spin atoms can pass energy from one to the next with no net loss of energy."

Gardner claims that this substance was used by ancient Summerians, Babylonians and Egyptians to extend their lifespans and levitate the stone blocks to build the pyramids, among other things. Moses, in the Bible, fed a white powder from a melted golden idol to his followers. A previously unidentified white powder was found at various archaeological sites. So, this isn't a discovery, but rather a re-discovery.

But, it's matter does "pop into and out of existence" with heating and cooling.

I ordered some of the stuff online and have been using it for just over a week. I had patches of dry skin that I could previously never get rid of almost clear up entirely. I have more energy. I'm sleeping less, but waking up rested. And my eyesight has improved. I've yet to levitate, though...

As far as the substance being used as an energy source, I haven't found much. Mostly theorizing of the possibility of anti-gravity usage, the transfer of energy with no loss and even a warp drive engine, the creation of a warp bubble wherein a spaceship inside it could be in two places as once.

Fascinating and from the perspective of the oil and pharmaceutical industries, dangerous stuff...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 56 (view)
 
A bush in the hand is worth two in the bird
Posted: 8/20/2006 9:56:59 AM
A Buddhist of a Taoist is someone who's mad at anger?
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 162 (view)
 
Was Jesus Christ the Son of God... or God Himself?
Posted: 8/20/2006 9:53:26 AM
Someone earlier mentioned that Jesus never refered to himself as the son of God, I forget who or when...but, this is true, he didn't. Some of his followers called him that and his accusers tried to pin this claim on him. But, he never did, because there already was a Son of God alive at the time: the Roman Emperor. And if Jesus claimed to be the Son of god, he would have been guilty of sedition, which is the crime he was crucified for. All kings and emperors were believed to be the sons of whatever deity was popular at the time.
If his followers believed he was the Son of God, it's because, as some historians believe, he was descended from King David and they believed he was going to be restored as the King of Israel and liberate the Jews from Roman occupation. This is what got the Romans and the Jewish elite who collaborated with them so upset and rankled. That someone had the gall to stand up to them and possibly claim legitimate rule over Israel.
So, the "King of the Jews" placard on the crucifixion cross wasn't meant to mock Jesus, as Christian tradition claims. It was meant as a message to any other Jews who might get the notion to oppose the Romans. It was meant to demoralize them.

The literal interpretation of Jesus really being the son of god is a later, Pauline tradition that got voted into Christian doctrine almost 300 years after his death at the instigation of a pagan Roman emperor who had little interest in anything other than consolidating his tenuous hold on power. That would be Constantine, who converted to Christianity on his deathbed, probably to hedge his bets...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 31 (view)
 
what is the difference between Catholic & Protestant
Posted: 8/20/2006 9:22:06 AM
The difference? Condoms. Birth control. I think that's it, really.

But, that may just be the influence of Monty Python on my formative years...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 54 (view)
 
A bush in the hand is worth two in the bird
Posted: 8/20/2006 9:18:50 AM

I think many who claim to be agnostic or atheist would like to believe but cannot find enough "evidence" to persuade them to.

No, no no...I'm claiming to be agnostic and I think not only is there no evidence to support the idea of the Christian god, but what evidence there is (archaelogical, early documents other than the bible, etc.) actually contradicts the idea of the christian god. There's some archaelogical evidence of multiple gods, though. They had very human emotions, motivations and flaws. They organized early humans into a workforce to mine gold and other precious metals. At least, thats what the earliest documents and artifacts from ancient Sumeria and Babylon seems to claim. That makes much more sence to me than a god who created everything out of some desire to be loved and worshipped and obeyed (which appears to be God's motivation, if you look at the Bible).


But, generally, an atheist to me is someone who is mad at God, and that's what I see.

I was an atheist for a while, right after I first gave up on Christianity all those years ago. I was never mad at god. But I was mad at the organized religion. At the edicts, judgements and pronouncements of the self-righteously arrogant. And the blind servitude of the flock. People with brains refusing to use them. That really ticked me off...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 7 (view)
 
The Bible and earlier texts
Posted: 7/18/2006 9:36:37 AM
Good point...the resting, I mean...the Enuma Elish was the Babalonian's myth based on earlier Sumerian myths. There, the god Enki created the "Primative Worker" with the help of the birth goddess, because the lower ranking gods, who did all the work, rebelled and demanded an end to their toil. So, they were able to rest afterwards. Makes sense.

The Primative Workers were intended by most of the gods to be basically slaves. But Enki gave them access to the fruit of knowledge, because he thought they deserved to be self-aware. He went against the wishes of the other gods. He was also responsible for warning the Sumerian version of Noah of the impending flood when the other gods wanted to just leave humans to their fate.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 281 (view)
 
The question no christian can answer for me.
Posted: 7/18/2006 9:25:02 AM
^^^
Edit: no not that post, the one above it...greeneye's post...didn't quote 'cause I thought it'd be next...
Yeah...I thought about that one, sort of...
In Catholicism, we had confession. When I was a youngster, we'd get up to no good, as kids do, and I remember thinking, at the time, "Oh, this thing I'm about to or have done is a sin. But, I'll be alright as long as I confess it later."
I know...it don't work if you don't truly repent. But believe me, when you're in those churches built to the glory of God, they are huge and you look up and feel small. You feel something like the power of god. It's easy to be repentant when you're faced with that. I think that was the point of building these extravagant structures.
So, that's my beef too. You can do what you want as long as you seek forgiveness afterwards.

But, yeah, what's the benefit of living the proper Christian life if you can just convert on your deathbed and get the same reward?

BTW...Islam isn't secular...but I know what you meant...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Believing is seeing.
Posted: 7/17/2006 6:42:47 PM
Very sorry Dave...misunderstood you.
I just today watched a National Geographic docu on the Gospel of Judas...apparently the cannonical gospels were used together by one tradition of many within the early Christian faith for about 150 before the council. But there were more than 30 different gospels floating around, many of them conflicting with one another.

In the Gospel of Judas, Judas is the only apostle who truly understands Christ's teachings, which were that a piece of the divine exists within each of us, and that piece and God are the same thing. Or something to that effect.
The last supper happens slightly differently, too. In it, Jesus announces that one of the twelve will betray him, and he says it will be the one he gives a piece of bread to, which, of course was Judas. So, it seems that Jesus was assigning him the task of betraying him to the Romans.
There's no crucifiction in it. The Gnostics who read it believed that Jesus needed to die in order to free his eternal spirit from the body.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 252 (view)
 
The question no christian can answer for me.
Posted: 7/17/2006 1:10:29 PM

"You're oppressing me, a member of one of the most populous and politically powerful religions in the western hemisphere!"

That is a very illuminating comment...after centuries of unchallanged supremacy, things are changing, and Christian political organizations are loosing influence in most of the world. Society is becoming pluralistic and Christians see that as a threat. When told that the rest of us don't believe in their religion and don't want their beliefs forced upon us, they feel they are being oppressed because they believe its their divine right and duty to force their religion on us. It's like a certain ruling political party claiming that the opposition party are wrecking the country, even though they hold hardly any political power at all. (I'm trying to avoid igniting a political quagmire with my analogy by not naming names, but I'm sure you'll know who I mean)

Man, I'd like to know. I never even get 'em on my doorstep. No fair. Send me some.

Actually, I don't now. I live in an apartment and by buzzer doesn't work. I manage to avoid all manner of door-to-door solicitor. If only I could stop the free vacation and credit card phonecalls...

Dunno 'bout the Ark, man. Never heard any of that. Got any sources?

A historian named Laurence Gardner, who links the Ark to the ORME, discovered by David Hudson. Google any of those for a journey into the weird.

But, I think Fishy is talking about the more in-your-face type...and let's face it, there really is no pleasing them.

My point being to understand why, and teach, and learn, and dance from there.

Yes...but sometimes there is just very little common ground...to bring up again the JWs, who are basically ordered to convert others, it's part of their faith, to witness, so they're an extreme version of in-you-face Christians...I had a neighbour who was a Jehovah's Witness...we got along fine until he asked me about my beliefs. I told him I didn't really have any and that I thought all religions and philosophies had something of value in them. That religion, science, philosophy, psychology and even magic theory can each make valid points on different aspects of existence. Well, he told me I was wrong and started giving me books. But refused anything I offered him...(the Hiram Key by Christopher Knight & Robert Lomas, the Tao of Pooh, Voltaire's **stards by John Ralston Saul and probably something by Robert Anton Wilson, cause I was heavily into his books at the time). I never got halfway through anything he gave me because, as you mentioned earlier, all their conclusions were supported by scripture and nothing else, using the Bible as the ultimate authority on the Bible. When I pointed that out to him it was as if I'd told him the world was inside out.
Our relations weren't as civil after that...
That's what I was talking about. They can't let it go. They will always look down on you as a sinner for not believing. It's hard to engage in a dialogue with that.
Sometimes I think it's a case of resentment. Since their faith has told them to not enjoy life, they're miserable. And they resent people who aren't.

And, everyone: These are generalized observations based on individual Christians and by no means do I mean all Christians. I have many Christian friends and relatives who view their faith and everyone else's as a personal matter, who are comforted by it and get what they need from it and do enjoy life and don't judge. Some of them don't even believe in Hell. They can't reconcile a loving God with any possibility of eternal damnation. A Catholic nun first told me that in high school, and she was one of the coolest teachers I had.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 37 (view)
 
Movies that never got the respect they really deserved
Posted: 7/17/2006 12:01:13 PM
Batman & Robin Forever

Wait...that's two movies in one...
Did you mean Batman Forever? I agree, that wasn't a fantastic movie but it was fun and entertaining. Quite enjoyed it. Nowhere near Batman Begins, but still good.
If you meant Batman & Robin, you must be out of your mind. The dialogue was horrible and the actors all just seemed bored. It was the only movie I remember getting zero stars in the newspaper reviews...

Here's an obscure one: Greaser's Palace. It had the guy who played the psychiatrist from the show MASH and Tattoo from Fantasy Island in a bizarre Old West analogy of the story of Jesus, about a guy who wanted to be a dancer...Truely weird...

Equilibrium...Yeah...good flick!
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 31 (view)
 
Believing is seeing.
Posted: 7/17/2006 11:36:28 AM

This was funny to read. Your telling me it took 325 years for a bunch of bishops to officially proclaim Jesus the son of god dispite the fact that, to BE a bishop, one must accept Jesus as the son of god?
And why would they need to even vote on it? The whole idea of christianity is that Jesus is the son of god and any division that says otherwise isn't christian.

Why don't you go look it up? The council of Nicea is where the divinity of christ became church doctrine. It wasn't before that. This is a matter of historical record.

Jesus never once claimed to be the son of god. That was the apotles and Paul.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 237 (view)
 
The question no christian can answer for me.
Posted: 7/17/2006 2:55:40 AM
Yes, but when you have already been told you are too late, eternally damned, sorry (yes, you have to add it up, but I admit to committing the 'unforgivable sin', therefore I am beyond help) and yet they still want to pray for god to come into your life, you have to question the logic/reasoning behind that. If I am beyond saving why would they want to pray for me to know god unless it is to make me feel tortured in this life as well as the afterlife?

I'll take a shot at this...
First, I think Mark said there is no unforgivable sin, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Second, I think whoever says you're eternally damned means that only if you don't accept Jesus into your life. They are praying to God on your behalf in the hopes that he can help you find salvation, or something along those lines. Hopefully something like that. If they're praying in favour of your eternal damnation, that's kind of twisted...

So, when someone comes to me, at least, praying for my soul, explaining to me how the world is, what's at stake, etc. I value that. They care. They may very well be misguided in the object of their concern, but they're sincere in their love and care. It's when they get pushy and start making decisions for me that it ticks me off.
I agree...I just spent the weekend working the Jehovah's Witnesses convention that swept through town. And when they're not on your doorstep they're incredibly decent people. A few offered me their literature, but I politely declined, suggesting that they could put it to better use than giving it to me. They weren't offended and they were still polite. As long as it's genuine and not invasive, I don't mind someone trying to give me a prayer card or whatever. But, I think Fishy is talking about the more in-your-face type...and let's face it, there really is no pleasing them. Except conversion...

Yes, we can argue here but what's the point??

Some kind of understanding, I think...

People want to blame the Christians for all wrongdoings: crusades and such. Was it the true believers and followers of Christ and His word that did these things or other sects??- That did not know or follow the true God or Christ??

You're right, there. The leaders of the church had really lost the script by that point...

Oh and while we're on the subject, was it really the Witches who were burned at the stake back in Salem? Why don't some of you ask someone who might know the truth??

I gotta ask: what is the truth?

I just hope I'm not the one doing things to your misconceptions. I'm kinda spoken for.

No! No worries...blowing my misconceptions is kind of a hobby of mine...I like finding out stuff I don't know...processing new information...it keeps things interesting. I just appreciated having the discussion bumped up a notch...

I've thought about that. Is a pillar of salt a pile of ashes?
I don't see any way that that comparison/parallel could legitimately be drawn, either figuratively or literally. The metaphorical interpretation that I'd heard was along the lines that Lot's wife looked back, saw the consequences of messing with Jehovah, and became a "pillar of the community" and the "salt of the earth,"

Oh, yeah, I can see that. I'm still fond of my vapourization interpretation, but have absolutely nothing to back it up.

As for the Ark, that was later on, after the Exodus out of Egypt. It may have contained some instrument of God's power, such that it legendarily granted victory to the army that carried it in battle,

Right...I got my timeline confused...
I've read claims that the Arc was a conductor of electricity. That the very specific instructions of how to build it perfectly describe either a conductor or a super-conductor. And that the priests or anyone in its presence had to remove all metallic objects from their person makes complete sense from this perspective. Weren't people supposedly accidentally killed by it for handling it wrong or otherwise behaving inappropriately in its presence? Do you reckon this holds any water?
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 69 (view)
 
noah, the flood and all that jazz
Posted: 7/17/2006 2:01:13 AM
But when you say 'the deluge', I assume that you're referring to a worldwide flood which covered all the land. There is no evidence for a flood which matches what the Bible claims to have happened.


Oh yeah, I was referring to the flood mentioned in the Bible. I don't know that it was worldwide, though. Maybe...ice age ending and everything. But, yeah, I think it's very probable that it happened and that's what those people were writing about.

See, I view the Bible as basically this analogy: Say, some cataclysm wipes out our society, obliterating all records and information except for some reason a cache of Bill O'Rielly tapes survives. Then 2,000 years from now, humans rebuild society but all their knowledge of the past comes from Fox News.
That's basically what happened. But the cataclysm was the domination over most of the planet by the Roman Catholic Church, who destroyed or buried every scrap of information that they came across that they didn't stick in the Bible and eventually slaughtered everyone who they suspected disagreed with them. And they really got into that. (I just read that the Pope reversed the Church's position on witchcraft...they had considered it non-existent and it was a heresy to even think there were such things as witches...then, it suddenly became real to the Church and they started burning anyone who was accused by anyone else anywhere at any time of being a witch...and all because they had run out of heretics to torture and burn. And the Inquisition never stopped...it just changed it's name and the current pope was previously it's leader...crazy freaking world, eh? ) So, I think the events probably happened, but our facts about them are pretty scrambled...but they've been finding scrolls in various places that predate the Church, so they haven't been tampered with. They shed some light on some things.


Of course, your version, which is 'The Exodus happened, if you turn Hebrews into Egyptians, get rid of the Red Sea and all the magic tricks and toss in some Masons', might work too. Kind of like how if you were to eliminate gravity, we wouldn't need planes. BTW, which Pharaoh were you referring to, and who's doing the speculation?


The pharoah was Akhenaten. Moses was a title, not his name...it was derived from mosis, Greek meaning heir or offspring, as in Amenmose, "born of Amen".
The Hebrews were Egyptians. I admit to being hazy on the whole "Jewish Captivity" phase of the Bible, but during that time the early Jews apparently were assimilated into the Egyptian culture. Like immigrants into any culture, while still retaining some of their own. Akhenaten was exiled and his supporters left with him.
Maybe they just considered the Suez Gulf part of the Red Sea. Haven't come across anything that even addresses the parting of the Red Sea.
The speculation is done by the writers I mentioned in my previous post, historians and researchers who are heavily into biblical history and extrapolation and speculation based on ancient artifacts and texts recently unearthed. It gets pretty bizarre at times, which is when I love it most...

marley...assuming you were referring to me...I never said I believed anything. I don't. I just really enjoy speculations that try to make sense of what evidence does exist. And most of it is so open to interpretation that theories can and do lead just about anywhere. If something can be fully explained, it's boring. I dig the unexplained. And obscure references...ultimately it's research I've been doing for some kind of creative project, whose medium I've not yet determined.
But, anyway, I'm not really concerned with reality. It doesn't need my belief or support to continue functioning...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Was Jesus a Father?...
Posted: 7/17/2006 1:57:04 AM
There is ample proof that Christ existed as a historical personage.


Not really. There's evidence that may suggest he existed, but no real proof. And if he did there's no proof that his name was even Jesus. All there is are sparse historical documents from the time that may reference a Jewish messiah, an "annointed one". Some say a messiah was instigating riots against the Romans. In the Bible, Jesus appears to try to appease the Romans, so that don't sound like him...plus, unless I remember incorrectly, that supposedly happened like 40 years after his death. So, it looks like they had messiahs after Jesus or whoever. Maybe they had some before. who knows?

I have wondered for a while if the passages alluding to the birth of Christ were a camoflauge for the birth of Jesus's own child. When Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt with the infant, could that have been a reference to Mary Magdalene and Joseph of Aramathea fleeing with Jesus's child after his death? .

Interesting, haven't thought about that...and...apparently there's evidence in Egypt...Tell us more, tekrok. It seems to me that Christ's birth as presented is full of symbolism and I just read that it's full of later traditions. Or, popular unfounded assumptions, at least. I'm reading Michael Baigent's The Jesus Papers, and he claims that the Bible or at least the original Greek or Latin, never mentions a stable. That one of the Gospels just says "house". And there were no such thing as inns back then. Supposedly, Jewish culture dictated that travellers be given shelter in your home. And that mangers were often used to house infants, because they were the proper size and most people had them or something.

My take on this is that Matthew made it up in order to have Jesus fulfill a nonexistent prophecy

Could be...they were all aware of the Old Testament prophesies regarding the messiah. I mean, check out Jesus coming into town on the back of a donkey. It seems to be usually presented as a miracle and proof of his messiahship (is that a real word?), but, come on...he tells the disciples to go to a specific location and they'll find a donkey there, and the apostles are convinced it's a miracle...How hard would it be to arrange to have a donkey waiting somewhere so you could ride into town on it and convince the local population that you're fulfilling prophesy? I'm surprised it wasn't a weekly occurance.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 231 (view)
 
The question no christian can answer for me.
Posted: 7/17/2006 1:17:31 AM
Issue there is, that's religion, it's not the legendry, the mythology, or the faith. A lot of the time those things seem inextricable, but I think that's the point behind theology. To figure out what means what, and what's just arbitrarily assigned meaning.

It's those theologians who confuse a lot of things. It's difficult sometimes to separate conclusions drawn from theologians and what is actually in the Bible. I keep getting my misconception blown. Which, I'm sure you know can be tremendous fun...
it was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.... It's a parable for mankind knowing right from wrong and having the power to choose. Then, they make the choice, and they're either right or screwed. Another big sticking point for me, but I won't get into that.

Aw, come on, get into it.
Say, I may've brought this up here or perhaps elsewhere, but I recently came across the idea that the Tree of Knowledge had something to do with sex or reproduction, since "knowing" in the biblical sense means shagging. Any thoughts on this?
But, is it mentioned in the Bible as "the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" or was that tacked on later? Because that would seem to rule out the smutty theory.

For my part, that's one of those "not enough info" gigs. It's entirely possible that was a side-effect of whatever method was used to level Sodom and Gomorrah. Or, as I've heard in the past, the "pillar of salt" deal was metaphorical. Dunno, wasn't there. Be interesting to learn different viewpoints, though.

I've thought about that. Is a pillar of salt a pile of ashes? Was she vapourized. Was it the Arc of the Covenant that obliterated the Cities? And she looked? Or is that just Lucas and Spielberg's influence?

Adam and Eve didn't know death, didn't even have the concept in their minds. They couldn't have. Death entered the world (according to the Scriptural account of that story itself!) after they'd eaten the fruit.

Yeah...I realized that right after I posted....but I was too overhearted to edit again...I hosed myself down, so I'm refreshed...I know...I know...nobody really wanted to know that...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 216 (view)
 
The question no christian can answer for me.
Posted: 7/16/2006 11:10:10 PM
Fishy: "I see your point in that he HAD to do the things he did because he had to follow the rules he set for us, just why would anyone think a loving god would make such cruel laws to begin with. Most of the things that are considered 'sins' that we are to be punished for are natural thoughts, actions, feelings, that are not a choice."

I think Christians of the variety of that crazy post a few back would say that it's all about self-discipline, that God demands it. But why? Why is self-discipline to the extent where you deny most of what makes us human? And if he created us why make us as we are and then order us not to be like we are? It almost seems like he's just set the whole thing up to amuse himself at our expense...

Feral...best post by far I've read in this thread. It's always good to see someone who's able to understand and appreciate different perspectives...

But, I can certainly see the sense it makes for those who subscribe to the worldview that makes it all not only possible but necessary.


I agree...and I'd add that most Christians are raised in the faith and are sheltered from other faiths and points of view, until they're cemented in their beliefs. I was raised Catholic, and they didn't even admit in school that there were any other religions until after we were confirmed. I felt cheated. I didn't realize that there were other options. Maybe that's not the case today, with this internet contraption and all, but in my day, that Cathedral made us feel infitesmal...huh? Where was I going with this? It's too hot, my brain is melting...
To address the OP's question of how people could believe it, I think a lack of other options is also a factor...

And they kind of gloss over some of the more brutal and vindictive and sometimes petty things God got up to in the Old Testament. I mean, turning Lott's wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back? What's with that?
And his Chosen People...he kind of crapped all over them...
And he flat out lied to Adam right at the start of it all. He told him they'd die if they ate from the Tree of Knowledge. They didn't. Unless he was speaking figuratively. Which he never said he was. Because no one asked him...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 63 (view)
 
noah, the flood and all that jazz
Posted: 7/16/2006 10:21:08 AM
I've found this article about core samples taken from the floor of the Black Sea, which showed layers of mud carbon dated to 18,000 to 8,600 years ago, indicating a flood that lasted much longer than 40 days and 40 nights (but some researchers claim that whenever 40 is mentioned in the bible, it's symbolic, and not literal.) It's here: http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2000/april/phenom_apr00.php

But that wasn't the evidence I was referring to. I couldn't find it online. But I'd read that archaeologists had found mud layers underground in some site in Iraq. It was in a book either by Laurence Gardner or Zecharia Sitchin. Forget which...This isn't definite proof, by any stretch of the imagination. But it is evidence...

The Bible is not entirely accurate in a lot of things. The geneologies given are of particular confusion due to the later tradition of male bloodlines. But matrilinear bloodlines were just, if not more, important to the early Mesopotamians. And so, one of the geneologies given for Jesus should actually end in Mary, not Joseph. I'm going off memory here, so I can't at the moment be more specific. I believe I read about that in Baigent. I will seek it out when I have more time...

And what do you mean Exodus couldn't have happened? It's speculated from archaeological evidence that Moses was a deposed pharoah who left Egypt with his supporters and moved to Israel, where they were given the Laws of the land they were moving to (the 10 Commandments) by the Lord of the Mount, who nobody's quite sure who he actually was.
If you mean the parting of the Red Sea...Just look at a map...to get to Israel from Egypt, they wouldn't even need to cross the Red Sea. They'd actually be going out of their way, making the journey longer. They may have crossed the Gulf of Suez, but I understand that portions of that are quite easy to cross.
And if you mean Moses' miracles with the staff and whatnot, it's been shown that he was probably performing some ritual whose meaning has been lost and was mischaracterized in scripture. Like many of the miracles in the Bible.
It's also been pointed out by Knight and Lomas the similarity, for instance, of the masonic initiation ritual (which has its roots in the time of Solomon, ie. way before Christ) and the raising of Lazarus. They speculate that he was raised by Jesus from a symbolic death as an initiation into his brotherhood.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Believing is seeing.
Posted: 7/15/2006 11:15:55 PM
I can't stand Dan Brown.

I will try to be brief...
325 AD: Council of Nicea...The divinity of Jesus made official dogma by a rather wide margin, 217-3. One of the three was an old man who was punched out by an angry bishop...

393-397 AD: Council of Hippo...the New Testement formalized. The Bishops poured over an unknown number of Gospel that were in circulation, decided what would go in and the rest were either locked away in the Vatican's vault or destroyed.

The first recorded use of any of the cannonical gospels was in 140 AD by convert Marcion. It was Luke's.

Jesus wasn't married to the church for the simple reason that there was no church at that time. Christ and the Apostles were not Christians. There was no such thing. They were Jews and believed in Judaism.

If Jesus and Mary Magdaline had a child, they would not have announced it because the Romans would have killed it. Jesus was a descendant of David, and so rightful heir to the throne, and his offspring would have been as well.

The authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail exposed Plantard as a fraud in a subsequent, less publicised book. All it did was remove some convoluted line of evidence that the bloodline still exists. If it exists in any kind of organized fashion, protected by some secret society or order, they would not reveal themselves to guys who they knew were writing a book on the subject. Duh!

Anything else anyone needs to know?
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 59 (view)
 
Drive the money-changers out from between your temples
Posted: 7/15/2006 10:36:54 PM
Adam and Eve were the first recorded royalty, not the first people, is my guess. And the Mesopotamians said they were given to them by the gods, whatever that's supposed to mean. So, they did believe in some kind of Divine Right...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Posted: 7/15/2006 10:30:28 PM
I'm gonna say I just recently saw Aeon Flux and I think it was a lot better than critics were saying. I think people just lost patience with it because they didn't know what the hell is going on for the first hour or so...
and the liquid technology was cool...500 years in the future, who's to say what it'd be like, they could pretty much get away with whatever they wanted...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 57 (view)
 
It is my firm belief that it is a mistake to hold firm beliefs.
Posted: 7/15/2006 10:11:42 PM

I'm sorry but they provide so much other info about who married who that it seems odd to not mention where all these people came from. Eve must have been churning out babies faster then anyone can imagine and they must have been screwing eachother at sexual maturity (13). Because that's the only way that would have worked.


Here's another useless bit of historical trivia: The reason there are so many begats in the Bible is because everyone mentioned is of one royal bloodline. (And before I'm accused of anything...I hated the DaVinci Code, although I may see the movie on DVD...but just for Magneto) But, seriously, those are all kings. Whatever you think of Christianity, the Bible is a historical chronicle, however muddied and clouded its facts. So, those king's subjects just didn't matter to the people compiling the names, it doesn't mean they weren't there. It just means nobody paid attention to them. Anyone who doesn't make history is forgotten by it.

That's why Jesus was so important at the time. He was the culmination of two important bloodlines who the Jews believed was prophesized to come and free them from the Romans. He was two messiahs in one. They were way impressed until he said "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's" which was regarding Roman taxation, a very heated and controversial issue at that time. That's what really pissed the Jews off, especially the Zealots, who were insurgents, in modern parlance.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 1032 (view)
 
Why is smoking pot a crime?
Posted: 7/14/2006 9:26:45 AM
Ok... if pot is such a great medicine, then extract the helpful ingredient and put it in a pill.... sell it in a pharmacy thru a prescription!

Uh...I think I mentioned that they have...that is the situation in Canada, you can get pot pills through prescription. When the program started they were giving patients weed to smoke, but that didn't work so well for people who had lung cancer. So, they made a pill. It's also paid for by healthcare. The patients don't have to pay a cent for it.
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Is Science a Religion?
Posted: 7/13/2006 9:08:52 PM
Well, if it's come to quoting dictionaries, mine give several definitions, most to do with spirituality, but one is this: "something which has a hold on a person's way of thinking, interests, etc." and it gives football as an example...!

That definition could certainly apply to science...but my original question had more to do with the attitudes of its adherents.
For example, most scientists I assume would dismiss all schools of magic as balderdash. But, Peter J Carroll, a chaos magician, whose books I understand about 75.8% of, claims that science just doesn't know how to measure magic yet. And before anyone dismisses Mr. Carroll, his book Liber Chaos is divided into two sections: Chaos Theory and Chaos Magic...He tries to meld science and magic. I am not advocating his position, to be clear. I'm just wondering if scientists would give it any consideration or just consider it foolish and stupid?
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Canadians Who Hate Hockey
Posted: 7/13/2006 10:55:49 AM
Well, I intended it to be light hearted and fun, but...

And I figured if it was in sports, I'd just get a bunch of abuse...

Terribly sorry...you must provide the humour....
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 1028 (view)
 
Why is smoking pot a crime?
Posted: 7/13/2006 10:05:34 AM

The short term effects of marijuana use include: memory loss, distorted perception, trouble with thinking and problem solving, loss of motor skills, decrease in muscle strength, increased heart rate, and anxiety2.


First, thanks for the propaganda from the government website.

And i think "altered" perception is more apt, and I think that's what has the government and the powers that be worried. "Distorted perception" is what you find on government websites.

As for loss of motor skills...they did an experiment a while ago where they gave it to a professional race car driver, and the more he smoked, the better he was at driving an obstacle course. It improved his motor skills. Anyone who's smoked pot and played video games knows that.

Trouble with thinking and problem solving: Studies have shown that it can increase focus and concentration. Maybe the problem solving angle you're going for is a result of that altered perception, where the user suddenly realizes that the problem isn't really a problem and so not worth the effort...

Anxiety2...is that better or worse than anxiety1? There's nothing wrong with a little paranoia....keeps you on your toes.

And, your arguments referred to Smoked Medical marijuana, what about its pill form? That's available in Canada. An 83 year old relative of mine just started taking it for arthritis and insomnia...the overpriced pharmaceutical drugs she's been taking haven't had any effect, other than the unwanted side effects for which she has to take more overpriced drugs...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Canadians Who Hate Hockey
Posted: 7/13/2006 9:28:21 AM
I don't know what that sequence of letters is supposed to mean...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 49 (view)
 
noah, the flood and all that jazz
Posted: 7/13/2006 9:26:14 AM

What God destroyed in the Flood wasn't human beings but a different race of beings and their offspring who were extremely violent and by some extra-biblical accounts, cannibals. These "sons of God" who were a race of fallen angelic beings, were attempting to eradicate humans from the creation.

In the original Mesopotamian texts that Genesis comes from, that race, called variously, the Watchers, Nefilim, Annanuki, Titans, were just the rank and file gods, workers and toilers, whose refusal to work prompted the creation of humans, as opposed to the ruling council of 12 gods, and they all left the planet before the flood.

The reason they are called fallen angels is because the original texts referred to them coming down from above. That's all. They fell out of the sky. They weren't cast down, they came by choice or duty and they weren't cannibals. (and by cannibals, did you mean they ate each other or humans? Because if they ate humans they wouldn't be cannibals...different species)
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 20 (view)
 
the passionate eye / the world according to Bush
Posted: 7/13/2006 9:13:27 AM
I haven't seen the Passionate Eye documentaries but I've been following Bush's career since his selection as president. There's a great website called Bushwatch that has daily headlines about what Junior's up to, and the best time to check it out is on weekends, which is when the White house gangsters get up to the most evil, since the nightly news isn't really paying attention.

Bush supporters are always going to accuse any well researched documentary as "liberal propaganda" because, really, that's all they can say. They got nothing else.

Re: Clinton as much of a hypocrite as Bush: There's a BIg difference between lying about getting your****sucked and lying about why you're invading a country that's no threat to yours and killing thousands of innocent people.

And re: Bush, dumb or evil...I think both...I think the Republicans use Bush's dumbness to try and show he's just a harmless good ole boy...but I'm not sure if it's him or just the people behind him who are actually evil...
 fnord23
Joined: 6/30/2006
Msg: 89 (view)
 
The 4 types of atheists
Posted: 7/12/2006 11:12:44 PM
RDtoo, I know...I know...and that's why I would never call you a hardass.

I have respect for anyone's beliefs no matter what my opinions are regarding those beliefs, as long as they respect other's beliefs. It's difficult at times because I honestly don't have any desire to offend anybody who doesn't deserve it, but it can easily happen in discussions of this nature. And sometimes it is just due to a misreading of one's intent in a post.
I went back and looked at your "self-indulgence' posting and, true, you didn't mention anything about harming people. My mistake. But, I do find it hard to believe that you would suddenly loose all self-control if you suddenly became an atheist. Because you do appear to have integrity and the questions you ask do seem to be sincere. That's you, that's not God. Give yourself some credit, man!
 
Show ALL Forums