Thought policing and "trigger words" in Christian community

[Blackpowderduelist]

But I am telling you, not as a Catholic, because I am not one (and not only Catholics were out there before the Reformation, btw), I am telling you that Reformation DID do away with many sacraments, that are still maintained in older denominations... So, insisting on maintenance of sacraments after having done away with almost all of them, is an "interesting" thing to say...



I wasn't referencing icons, icons are objects... I was talking about sacraments.
Anyhow. Nobody is going to change their mind on this I'm sure, it was just an observation on my part is all.

We are cool to continue this conversation. If you like we can go to private messages, but I'm good to discuss right here. This may be the only productive conversation here. I am new to the idea of actual sacramental and confessional Christianity. ( I am in learning mode). I have left western evangelicalism, because I have found what the scriptures say (particularly about baptism, and the Supper). Mostly I have been learning the Lutheran school of thought. I have the Augsburg confessions on my phone, and a copy of the small catechism. If you have more and better information, please do share.

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

Why ever would one
Christian call another Christian an ass? Isn't anyone interested in that Christ told us not to even call another a fool?

He is directly referencing behavior. Context matters. I find it interesting that God said Ishmael is a wild ass of a man.
And he shall be as a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his brethren.
Genesis 16:12
I think the context here is the same.

 

[BenjaminN]

You give (Complete Disregard) to my post and claim, why?

Direct Question? Do You Deny Ezekiel 47:12 & Revelation 22:1-2 Is The Same Place, Same, River & Tree Seen Below?

Ezekiel Chapters 47-48 represents (The Eternal Kingdom) in the New Heaven, Earth, Jerusalem,

Ezekiel 47:12 is showing the (Eternal) River And Tree Of Life, Also Seen In Revelation 22:1-2, Same River, Tree, Fruit, Leaves For Healing/Medicine.

(The Eternal Kingdom)

Ezekiel 47:12KJV
12 And by the river upon the bank thereof, on this side and on that side, shall grow all trees for meat, whose leaf shall not fade, neither shall the fruit thereof be consumed: it shall bring forth new fruit according to his months, because their waters they issued out of the sanctuary: and the fruit thereof shall be for meat, and the leaf thereof for medicine.

(The Eternal Kingdom)

Revelation 22:1-2KJV
1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Ezekiel's water flow from an earthly temple into the desert and give life, Revelation's water of life flow from God's throne in heaven where the Lamb sits on his right hand.

 

[BenjaminN]

BenjaminN said:
1 Corinthians 5 (ESV)

11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. "Purge the evil person from among you."

Are you opposing Paul's words?

Absolutely I am not opposing Paul. Paul is speaking as an appointed apostle of the Lord, for goodness sakes. Please have a heart as you read me. I am saying that Paul does not say to be rude and become these people's enemies. Also we are speaking of Christians relating to Christians. I don't think this scripture is about Christians speaking to each other about doctrine.

Then we are on the same page.


Revelation 2 (ESV)

18 "And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: 'The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 "'I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. 20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.

 

[posthuman]

I disagree, his citation is credible and self sufficient.

oh? then describe how does it:

• define science
• define corruption in terms of science
• show that corruption did not exist in science before Darwin
• show that corruption now exists in science
  
  ?

your statement about the French enlightenment is unjustified opinion, and your statement about Newton, also empirically unjustified, contradicts @Nehemiah6's claim -- which you say you agree with, so you are contradicting yourself.

you are not doing good science.

 

[posthuman]

Why ever would one
Christian call another Christian an ass? Isn't anyone interested in that Christ told us not to even call another a fool?

He is directly referencing behavior. Context matters. I find it interesting that God said Ishmael is a wild ass of a man.
And he shall be as a wild ass among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his brethren.
Genesis 16:12
I think the context here is the same.

also to consider ((contextually it's Zophar speaking))

For vain man would be wise, though man be born like a wild ass's colt.​

(Job 11:12)​

​

 

[BenjaminN]

this doesn't empirically prove your claim that "science began to be corrupted after the theory of evolution was introduced"
in fact it's evidence for the opposite; you showed that evolutionary theories are criticized and hypotheses concerning it disproven among the scientific community, and that its presence has fostered research and development of creation science theories.

Evolution is not even a theory / hypothesis, it is a religion.

Evolution religion is not scientifically based, as it is contrary to entropy, the second law of thermodynamics where everything tends from order to chaos - not as evolution turns science on its head and wants to tell us that we should religiously follow the error of evolution religion of chaos to order

Evolution religion then justifies its nullification of the created natural order law of entropy, by introducing an eternal unprovable, unexperiementally repeatable notion of the lottery ticket of natural selection's survival of the fittest with aeons and aeons of years to the disposal of the "thought" experiment, where on one earth that evolved religiously in this universe of ours, a certain person will have one nose hair more and another maybe one nose hair less, with endless possibilities of just the number of nose hairs for one individual, let alone all the other properties of all the other persons - giving notion to another fallacy of theirs called parallel universes where there are an unnumbered ever so slight variations to each of the 7 billion individuals on this earth on other earths in the universe out there.

 

[posthuman]

Evolution is not even a theory / hypothesis, it is a religion.

Evolution religion is not scientifically based, as it is contrary to entropy, the second law of thermodynamics where everything tends from order to chaos - not as evolution turns science on its head and wants to tell us that we should religiously follow the error of evolution religion of chaos to order

Evolution religion then justifies its nullification of the created natural order law of entropy, by introducing an eternal unprovable, unexperiementally repeatable notion of the lottery ticket of natural selection's survival of the fittest with aeons and aeons of years to the disposal of the "thought" experiment, where on one earth that evolved religiously in this universe of ours, a certain person will have one nose hair more and another maybe one nose hair less, with endless possibilities of just the number of nose hairs for one individual, let alone all the other properties of all the other persons - giving notion to another fallacy of theirs called parallel universes where there are an unnumbered ever so slight variations to each of the 7 billion individuals on this earth on other earths in the universe out there.

how is this different than geocentrism?

 

[BenjaminN]

I disagree, his citation is credible and self sufficient.

My study finds that the the French Enlightenment added the turn in science, and its progression was down hill from there.

A study of Sir Isaac Newton shows a brilliant man, that attributed much to true science, however his life was entangled in the occult, Rosicrucianism, Alchemy, that saw a biased down hill turn in his work.

In 1666 (666 occult year), Catholic King Louis XIV established the French Academy of "Sciences" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Academy_of_Sciences ). After this the Sun King, King Louis XIV, eradicated and purged the French Huguenot Protestants from his country by means of his Dragonades, which started in 1681 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonnades ).

 

[BenjaminN]

how is this different than geocentrism?

What is geocentrism? I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[posthuman]

a certain person will have one nose hair more and another maybe one nose hair less, with endless possibilities of just the number of nose hairs for one individual

"endless" possibilities for the number of nosehairs??

friend, the only way the probability space for the number of nose hairs you have is unbounded is if it's possible for you to have infinite number of nose hairs!


((horrors!))


you've got a quantitatively finite possible number of nosehairs, so while the possibilities may be multitudinous ((a relative & subjective term)), they constitute a finite space

 

[posthuman]

What is geocentrism? I believe that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

the idea that all the universe -- particularly the planets, asteroids & sun -- orbit the earth.
as opposed to heliocentrism, the model in which the planets all revolve around the sun

it was to many much more than a scientific model of the physics of the heavenly bodies -- but by extension of the metaphor it presents, a religious, moral view, famously held by the RCC to the point of persecuting anyone who considered otherwise.

if Nehemiah were to bother answering me back about giving a sound, logical analysis of his claim that 'science began to be corrupted with Darwin' i had expected to answer him back with this. ironically it was in this case ((long before Darwin)) that the church was dogmatically holding a physical-science view that contradicted observation & reason, flooding schools with its teaching, and attacking any data and any person who opposed the concept.

 

[posthuman]

Evolution is not even a theory / hypothesis, it is a religion.

Evolution religion is not scientifically based, as it is contrary to entropy, the second law of thermodynamics where everything tends from order to chaos - not as evolution turns science on its head and wants to tell us that we should religiously follow the error of evolution religion of chaos to order

Evolution religion then justifies its nullification of the created natural order law of entropy, by introducing an eternal unprovable, unexperiementally repeatable notion of the lottery ticket of natural selection's survival of the fittest with aeons and aeons of years to the disposal of the "thought" experiment, where on one earth that evolved religiously in this universe of ours, a certain person will have one nose hair more and another maybe one nose hair less, with endless possibilities of just the number of nose hairs for one individual, let alone all the other properties of all the other persons - giving notion to another fallacy of theirs called parallel universes where there are an unnumbered ever so slight variations to each of the 7 billion individuals on this earth on other earths in the universe out there.

thanks for a more substantive reply -- yes, entropy presents an huge problem for evolutionary theories. we really ought to separate 'evolution' from the idea of abiogenesis, tho: they are not the same. evolution is not an 'origin theory' and Christians 99% of the time totally conflate the two, wrongly.

the concept of parallel universes doesn't really have any relationship to the idea that living creatures change over time through processes of random mutation & natural selection. iirc i think it originates in string theories trying to reconcile gravity with the other known forces, which gives rise to 11-dimensional models of the universe, that predict quantum fluctuations when you try to sort out how particles have mass in the first place. i'd have to go look it up.
it doesn't have anything to do with living beings though; it's all quantum-scale stuff.

 

[BenjaminN]

the idea that all the universe -- particularly the planets, asteroids & sun -- orbit the earth.
as opposed to heliocentrism, the model in which the planets all revolve around the sun

it was to many much more than a scientific model of the physics of the heavenly bodies -- but by extension of the metaphor it presents, a religious, moral view, famously held by the RCC to the point of persecuting anyone who considered otherwise.

if Nehemiah were to bother answering me back about giving a sound, logical analysis of his claim that 'science began to be corrupted with Darwin' i had expected to answer him back with this. ironically it was in this case ((long before Darwin)) that the church was dogmatically holding a physical-science view that contradicted observation & reason, flooding schools with its teaching, and attacking any data and any person who opposed the concept.

I would put forth that if Geocentrism gives forth not necessarily what revolves around what (as natural law dictates that the centre of gravity of the system of created bodies, will be closer to the more heavy gravitational body), but what was created for the benefit of what. The sun is created for the earth, not the earth for the sun - which physically revolves around which is irrelevant. The sun, planets, other stars and galaxies, is part of the heavens that God created, as he did the earth - and his creation was earth focused, and centred around earth in that way. Gravitational forces that will dictate the revolving of which bodies around which bodies will also take over as more bodies were created.

 

[posthuman]

I would put forth that if Geocentrism gives forth not necessarily what revolves around what (as natural law dictates that the centre of gravity of the system of created bodies, will be closer to the more heavy gravitational body), but what was created for the benefit of what. The sun is created for the earth, not the earth for the sun - which physically revolves around which is irrelevant. The sun, planets, other stars and galaxies, is part of the heavens that God created, as he did the earth - and his creation was earth focused, and centred around earth in that way. Gravitational forces that will dictate the revolving of which bodies around which bodies will also take over as more bodies were created.

we'd better be careful or the 'flat-earthers' will be attracted by the scent of our conversation lol

i've thought, that the symbolism long held, before observational evidence and logical principles overturned it, which was that the earth being the centerpiece of of God's creation being home to man, was more than a little vain -- i mean, how does David write 'what is man that Thou art mindful of him?' if man is supposedly glorified by all the order of creation? God's answer to Job doesn't seem to bode well for such a view. but the symbolism present in the solar system, in which all the heavenly bodies around us are 'controlled' by the great light, is actually honoring to God, who is represented best by the Sun, if we were pressed to choose among the things we know around us. the earth is inconsequential to it, incomprehensibly dwarfed; why should it notice us? from it we receive all that warms and animates us; without it there would only be darkness, cold, and death. it directs our path, and all the planets are governed by it, simply by its presence among us.
this, to me, is a much more fitting thing than the symbolism which heliocentrism replaced: the geocentric physic, ultimately man-centric religious view. it is an humiliating view. to me, this is stark & irrefutable evidence of 'corrupt science' going back some 2,000 years before Darwin. but even so, does that make 'science' corrupt? 'science' eventually overturned the Ptolemaic / geocentric dogma, through fully justified theory and empirical demonstration, and led to a an understanding of the universe which ((IMO, as i described)) more closely aligns with the truths we find in scripture. so science didn't fail -- science isn't 'the opinions of influential people' science is the rigorous process of hypothesis, experimentation, collection and analysis of data, and reconciliation/adjustment of hypotheses to agree with the analysis of data.

science isn't a 'person' or a 'group of people' or a widely held interpretation or worldview. science is a process; an algorithm of inquiry, a systematic approach to finding truth. that process eventually arrived at more accurate conclusions. so to me, with this definition, @Nehemiah6's statement about science becoming corrupt with the popularization of Darwin's hypotheses is absurd. it is absurd because i can demonstrate that wrong beliefs about physics were widely held and taught for thousands of years long before Darwin, and it is absurd because the process of scientific inquiry overcame them in time. it is absurd because the process of scientific inquiry if it is somehow 'corrupted' cease to be science, in the same way that a person riding a bicycle hasn't 'corrupted the process of walking' just because he's not engaging in it. what he's doing on a bike doesn't have anything to do with walking, and walking continues to exist as an abstraction that can be picked up again at any moment or engaged in by anyone else on the planet with two or more feet. it is absurd because at any given time, for any given topic, we could find two people considering that topic, one with a false understanding of it, and the other with a right one - and even if a million people hold the false understanding, the right understanding doesn't cease to exist just because it's rare -- it remains, and it remains so 'uncorrupted'

 

[Truth7t7]

science isn't 'the opinions of influential people' science is the rigorous process of hypothesis, experimentation, collection and analysis of data, and reconciliation/adjustment of hypotheses to agree with the analysis of data.

science isn't a 'person' or a 'group of people' or a widely held interpretation or worldview. science is a process; an algorithm of inquiry, a systematic approach to finding truth. that process eventually arrived at more accurate conclusions. so to me, with this definition,

Modern Science is represented by controlled findings and studies of special interest groups, with fraud and manipulation to achieve desired outcomes.

Piltdown man of 1912 is a prime example, a complete manufactured fraud, and world secular scientist allowed its concealment for 41 years, as world textbooks and museum replications were filled with its lies!

Global warming is the same fraudulent lie, as world scientist funded by special interests, manipulate studies and information to achieve desired outcomes, the climategate emails scam is a prime example exposing the scientist and truth, (Hide The Decline)

 

[Dino246]

Modern Science is represented by controlled findings and studies of special interest groups, with fraud and manipulation to achieve desired outcomes.

Piltdown man of 1912 is a prime example, a complete manufactured fraud, and world secular scientist allowed its concealment for 41 years, as world textbooks and museum replications were filled with its lies!

Your example is ridiculous. One fraud does not a conspiracy make.

 

[posthuman]

Modern Science is represented by controlled findings and studies of special interest groups, with fraud and manipulation to achieve desired outcomes.

unless you can document an ubiquitous problems in experimental design and worldwide flagrant falsification of data ((so-called 'climategate' doesn't do that, not at all)), you're just giving out unsubstantiated opinion.
you're the very problem you're railing against.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/data

here's the data. it's freely available. do your analysis, document your methodology, and show me your results.

 

[Dino246]

Your claims are false, it's my opinion you hate truth presented to you, and your personal attacks are the end result.

You're welcome to your opinions.

 

[Truth7t7]

unless you can document an ubiquitous problems in experimental design and worldwide flagrant falsification of data ((so-called 'climategate' doesn't do that, not at all)), you're just giving out unsubstantiated opinion.
you're the very problem you're railing against.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/data

here's the data. it's freely available. do your analysis, document your methodology, and show me your results.

The five key leaked emails from UEA’s Climatic Research Unit

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
...I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline.
Cheers
Phil

Conflict of interest

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>​

To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>​

Date: Wed Mar 31 09:09:04 2004​

Mike,​

... Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.​

Cheers​

Phil​

Biasing the IPCC assessment?

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>​

To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>​

Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL​

Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004​

​

Mike,​

... I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !​

Cheers​

Phil​

Rewriting the rules of Freedom of Information

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>​

To: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>​

Date: Wed Dec 3 13:57:09 2008​

Ben,​

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions - one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA [ClimateAudit] was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian - who deals with appeals...​

Cheers​

Phil​

Deleting the evidence

Phil Jones wrote to Mike Mann in 2008:​

​

Mike,​

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise... Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise...​

Cheers​

Phil​