Anti-Judeo-Christian Censorship

[Pymander]

Anti-Judeo-Christian Censorship

 

MoonTanMan and myself have been instructed to begin our discussion to our own thread, and as you know I do, I always comply to the best of my understanding.

 

In 1977, Thomas Jefferson drafted this Statute for Religious Freedom, and it was made into state law in Virginia in 1786. Edgar Cayce's own readings directed him from Selma, Alabama to Virginia , where his readings survive to this day with the Association of Research and Enlightenment. Singling out discussion of Judeo-Christian scripture as inappropriate on Science Forums seems quite contrary to this celebrated document, and even illegal in Virginia. I would like some opinions and discussion of the appropriateness of bringing such material to light in the speculations forum, particularly on the subject of 'The End of The World'. Using the term 'spam' against such, to legitimate censorship, seems propaganda worthy of Adolf Hitler, and is certainly not in the spirit of Thomas Jefferson's law.

 

Further, discussion concerning the creation of the universe, and the exclusion of alternatives to BigBangium, smacks of Mao Zedong at his best. Does a forum need a Little Red Book, and to be able to quote nothing else. The text of the Thomas Jefferson's law follows:

 

"AN ACT FOR ESTABLISHING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

 

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

 

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

 

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

 

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

 

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern,and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

 

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions anymore than our opinions in physics or geometry,

 

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

 

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

 

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

 

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

 

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

 

And finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

 

Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right."

Edited August 7, 2012 by CaptainPanic
turned down the volume (bold text)

[iNow]

Could someone turn down the volume in that post? Everything is bold and enfontified and it hurts the eyes.

 

In 1977, Thomas Jefferson drafted this Statute for Religious Freedom, and it was made into state law in Virginia in 1786.

Did he invent a time machine, too?

 

Singling out discussion of Judeo-Christian scripture as inappropriate on Science Forums seems quite contrary to this celebrated document, and even illegal in Virginia.

You seem to misunderstand. You were told that an anthology full of fictions written by humans back in the desert two thousand years ago is not valid supporting evidence of the claims you are making. That's what was inappropriate. It would be like claiming that magic is real and using Harry Potter books to justify your stance.

 

 

Using the term 'spam' against such, to legitimate censorship, seems propaganda worthy of Adolf Hitler

Wow... You already went Godwin in the very first post. Nice!

 

Further, discussion concerning the creation of the universe, and the exclusion of alternatives to BigBangium, smacks of Mao Zedong at his best. Does a forum need a Little Red Book, and to be able to quote nothing else.

Do we have a Godwin equivalent for claims of Maoism in forums? You're really pushing the edges of the envelope, my friend.

 

 

As for Jefferson's letter... You do realize that your constitutionally protected rights don't apply in a private forum, right? You can be kicked out and censored any day of the week and twice on Sunday if the staff here wish it. You agreed to that when you created your account.

 

On another note... Really, what's your point exactly?

[Moontanman]

What is your point here pymander, a wall of text making numerous assertions is difficult to answer. What is your main point in your own words?

[Pymander]

Could someone turn down the volume in that post? Everything is bold and enfontified and it hurts the eyes.

 

 

Did he invent a time machine, too?

[/Quote]

Human decency is (I hope) not time dependent, and the peace that allows the luxury of science relies on it, from averting revolution to anihilation.

You seem to misunderstand. You were told that an anthology full of fictions written by humans back in the desert two thousand years ago is not valid supporting evidence of the claims you are making. That's what was inappropriate. It would be like claiming that magic is real and using Harry Potter books to justify your stance.

[/Quote]

I do see your point, but distinctions between literal, metaphysical and spiritual content were never recovered simply by translation. Further, and this is a hard earned insanity (from your point of view), the Hermetic view of 'reality' does not preclude purely materialistic possibilities.

Wow... You already went Godwin in the very first post. Nice!

[/Quote]

Was he Jewish?

Do we have a Godwin equivalent for claims of Maoism in forums? You're really pushing the edges of the envelope, my friend.

[/Quote]

As Jefferson says, all are fallible.

As for Jefferson's letter... You do realize that your constitutionally protected rights don't apply in a private forum, right? You can be kicked out and censored any day of the week and twice on Sunday if the staff here wish it. You agreed to that when you created your account.

[/Quote]

Did I say anything about rights. In spirit all are fallable, and in case you haven't guessed, I turn to the masters, not the students of students. From Plato to Aristotle already went bad (imperialism).

On another note... Really, what's your point exactly?

The Judeo-Christian scripture was being disallowed. It is worldwide (KJV) and that took strange fate with Elisabeth I -> James (+ Machiavelli), with English, due to John Dee and the navy he recommended, as prophecised, after the Vatican (ignoring detail) assumed power after Rome collapsed. "The Gospel shall be preached to all nations before the end..." One hell of a coincidence. This is the speculation forum, and this must raise speculation concerning such coincidence. Science cannot reproduce a miracle. Miracles don't happen. This is 'science', not science. Read the right book on Rasputin. That's recent. Can you be so affronted mercifully? Christ was not permitted with unbelievers, echoed in the Jefferson doco. That is using force! Don't be too sure of such things. Jefferson had unusual insights likewise from a long tradition.

[iNow]

Both oblivious and nutty. That's a better combo than sweet and salty!

[Pymander]

What is your point here pymander, a wall of text making numerous assertions is difficult to answer. What is your main point in your own words?

Woodrow Wilson ended WWI with a Fourteen Point Plan, mainly about conflict caused by coloniallism. He consulted Edgar Cayce to compile this document and presented it to the Central Powers. He is quoted as saying "Anyone who reads the Bible will know that it is God's word." When asked about Cayce, he said "No man is that good a liar. The causes of war, and the next is our end, are clearly exploitation. The Fourteen Point Plan was soon, like so much else, forsworn as 'too idealistic'. In twenty years WWII happened. Fidel Castro and President Kennedy (inheriting a CIA plan) put the world on the brink for three weeks, in 1966. Disarmament began. We are lasting, getting complacent, throwing away the CAUSE of civilisation = religion, blithly serving who? We as scientists must be careful not to dismiss, nor accept hypotheses with greater care.

[Phi for All]

Singling out discussion of Judeo-Christian scripture as inappropriate on Science Forums seems quite contrary to this celebrated document, and even illegal in Virginia.

I think this part is the meat of the matter. And it's not accurate. It's not discussion of scripture that's inappropriate here; it's claiming that scripture qualifies as scientific evidence for ANYTHING other than its own existence.

 

Further, this assertion impugns the spirit of Jefferson's "celebrated document" by implying that we're restraining anyone's religious freedoms by using accepted definitions of scientific evidence. Pymander diminishes the integrity of his own beliefs by willfully misrepresenting the problem, and shows us that his grasp of what Jefferson meant with these words is flawed and one-sided.

[Pymander]

I think this part is the meat of the matter. And it's not accurate. It's not discussion of scripture that's inappropriate here; it's claiming that scripture qualifies as scientific evidence for ANYTHING other than its own existence.

 

Further, this assertion impugns the spirit of Jefferson's "celebrated document" by implying that we're restraining anyone's religious freedoms by using accepted definitions of scientific evidence. Pymander diminishes the integrity of his own beliefs by willfully misrepresenting the problem, and shows us that his grasp of what Jefferson meant with these words is flawed and one-sided.

 

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,...

[/Quote]

I refer to the spirit manifest in this excerpt as being violated. I am here by the good graces and hard work of others expressing my view, but I accept rebuke that's justified (and thanks for not throwing me off). The thread was "the end of the world". I presented a string of Biblical references across the KJV, retrieved in short order. This theme is throughout and intended by "Thy Kingdom Come" in the Lord's prayer from the sermon on the mount. These are relevant to the discussion. Even the riddle of the sphinx from Greek mythology, alludes to the ages, that begin and end, like the life of a man, on four legs, then two, then three. The denial of Atlantis loses this relevance, and the promise of returning to a world not ruled by the 'wicked'. Remember, the ancients, and many religions today, believe in returning to mortal life, so Zephaniah 3 (KJV) is now, the end, and the new world described. The Fifth council 553AD changed this philosophy to something inconsistent with the original Jewish eschatology. I hope this is not word salad.

 

As far as 'science' is concerned, evidence of intelligence without materialistic explanation exists, personalities wiser than the host, and even a source of unlimited information. The 'principle of equivalence' can be more universally applied, and probably should. This is evidence simply ignored, and that's not science.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Pymander

[John Cuthber]

I hope this is not word salad.

 

 

You hope in vain.

[swansont]

As for Jefferson's letter... You do realize that your constitutionally protected rights don't apply in a private forum, right? You can be kicked out and censored any day of the week and twice on Sunday if the staff here wish it. You agreed to that when you created your account.

 

 

I don't think there's a date exception in the software which double-executes the ban subroutine. It's a boolean state.

 

As to the rest, yes. The staff here tries to enforce the rules in order to facilitate discussion, and that includes moving threads to the appropriate section. It's not that you can't discuss e.g. alternatives to the Big Bang, it's that it will take place in speculations, because it's not established science. Frankly, I don't understand the position that moving a thread to speculations is censorship; it makes me wonder if the complainers understand the definition of the word. How that relates to a thread about Anti-Judeo-Christian censorship is another thing I don't understand.

 

Fidel Castro and President Kennedy (inheriting a CIA plan) put the world on the brink for three weeks, in 1966.

So his assassination in 1963 was a hoax?

[Moontanman]

Pymander, why is it the Christian religion you seem to think is so important? What makes the Christian religion worthy of more respect than any other?

[Phi for All]

I refer to the spirit manifest in this excerpt as being violated.

You requote the part of Jefferson's act that would prohibit people from forcing someone to denounce their religion before anyone takes them seriously. Again, THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE! Religious documentation that can't be validated is simply NOT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. You can use it for the purposes of your opinion, but where you always run into problems here is when you try to use it to back up the assertions you make. That doesn't work well on a science forum, and you should be aware of that by now instead of claiming censorship.

 

I am here by the good graces and hard work of others expressing my view, but I accept rebuke that's justified (and thanks for not throwing me off).

We don't ban people for holding a certain belief or point of view, we ban them for breaking the rules, period.

 

The thread was "the end of the world". I presented a string of Biblical references across the KJV, retrieved in short order. This theme is throughout and intended by "Thy Kingdom Come" in the Lord's prayer from the sermon on the mount. These are relevant to the discussion. Even the riddle of the sphinx from Greek mythology, alludes to the ages, that begin and end, like the life of a man, on four legs, then two, then three. The denial of Atlantis loses this relevance, and the promise of returning to a world not ruled by the 'wicked'. Remember, the ancients, and many religions today, believe in returning to mortal life, so Zephaniah 3 (KJV) is now, the end, and the new world described. The Fifth council 553AD changed this philosophy to something inconsistent with the original Jewish eschatology. I hope this is not word salad.

Not so much word salad as completely meaningless to the charges of censorship you're leveling at us.

 

As far as 'science' is concerned, evidence of intelligence without materialistic explanation exists, personalities wiser than the host, and even a source of unlimited information. The 'principle of equivalence' can be more universally applied, and probably should. This is evidence simply ignored, and that's not science.

Again, you take a non-mainstream idea, that equivalence principle should be applied more universally, assume it to be true and then argue that it's evidence ignored. Do you begin to see where the real problem lies?

 

So his assassination in 1963 was a hoax?

More temporal tinkering from Jefferson and his damn time machine....

 

Pymander, why is it the Christian religion you seem to think is so important? What makes the Christian religion worthy of more respect than any other?

Hold on here, let's stick to the topic of censorship. This is not another "Why do you believe" thread, this is a very serious charge of censoring someone's beliefs. We're not obligated to follow any kind of democratic freedom of speech here, but we do pride ourselves on allowing all opinions that don't violate our rules.

[Moontanman]

Hold on here, let's stick to the topic of censorship. This is not another "Why do you believe" thread, this is a very serious charge of censoring someone's beliefs. We're not obligated to follow any kind of democratic freedom of speech here, but we do pride ourselves on allowing all opinions that don't violate our rules.

 

 

Ok, it looked to me like he was claiming that only his version of god was being censored but i'll go with simple censorship...

[ydoaPs]

The Judeo-Christian scripture was being disallowed.

 

No, it's not. Look right over there. We have a whole forum for religious topics and most of them are Christian in nature.

 

As for Jefferson's letter... You do realize that your constitutionally protected rights don't apply in a private forum, right? You can be kicked out and censored any day of the week and twice on Sunday if the staff here wish it. You agreed to that when you created your account.

 

That's an excellent point. To quote myself from another thread:

 

 

Only if it's done by the government. As an American citizen I am free from the fear of being censored by my government. My right to free speech, however, does not extend into the private sector.

 

I know that private outlets such as this fine website are the property of their owners. We don't have to be allowed to have a voice here. This site is John's personal toy that he lets you play with for free. However, to facilitate a better experience for all involved, he and his crack team of staff members have put into place rules and guidelines to which you agreed upon registration. If you don't like the rules, don't post here. No one is making you log on. It's the same with any other form of media. A newspaper isn't going to publish an essay you write if it violates their rules; why should a website.

 

There are plenty of other websites to troll. Move along.

[Phi for All]

I think it's clear to (almost) everyone that there has been no censorship here. No one edited or deleted another's words, no one was stopped from voicing his/her opinion, and no information was judged unacceptable in and of itself. A misunderstanding about what constitutes scientific evidence seems to be at the heart of this matter. Misunderstandings can be corrected, ignorance can be cured, as long as it's not willful.

 

That said, I have to wonder which is worse, actual censorship, where a person's words are suppressed as unacceptable, or deliberate disinformation like this:

The Judeo-Christian scripture was being disallowed.

where the key phrase, "... as evidence to support an assertion regarding a scientific point" is omitted? Adding insult to injury, Thomas Jefferson is then invoked in an attempt to lend the attack a validity it hardly deserves.

 

Censorship is unjust suppression, but disinformation is malevolent evil, imo.

[Pymander]

I don't think there's a date exception in the software which double-executes the ban subroutine. It's a boolean state.

Didn't know AI was that advanced. That's Robocop scary.

As to the rest, yes. The staff here tries to enforce the rules in order to facilitate discussion, and that includes moving threads to the appropriate section. It's not that you can't discuss e.g. alternatives to the Big Bang, it's that it will take place in speculations, because it's not established science. Frankly, I don't understand the position that moving a thread to speculations is censorship; it makes me wonder if the complainers understand the definition of the word. How that relates to a thread about Anti-Judeo-Christian censorship is another thing I don't understand.

I am very comfortable in speculations, and make no stronger claim for my conjectures. But a lot of science belongs there too. Don't worry, I understand about confusing the neophytes.

 

This was censureship:

Considering that mayan, kuran & hindu thoughts are represented in this thread, I couldn't help feeling that the religion upon which the Constitution of the U.S.A and U.K. was based needs some representation. However, finding the relevant references requires some knowledge of its scripture, and decided to help. I hope this is okay.

DEUTERONOMY 32:21 - 32:22

PSALMS 46:4 - 46:6, 82:6 - 82:8

ISAIAH 65:17 - 65:21

DANIEL 11:36 - 11:39, 12:1 - 12:2, 12:11 - 12:13

NAHUM 2:3 - 2:4

ZEPHANIAH 1:3, 3:1 - 3:20

MATTHEW 24:15, 24:21 - 24:31

ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 17:30 - 17:32

2 PETER 3:1 - 3:18

REVELATION 11:15 - 11:19

[/Quote]

Moontanman, on 2 August 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

I am selling insurance that will pay you 1 billion dollars if the world comes to an end before your own life time is over. All you have to so is send me $1,000 to insure the world will not end with in the span of your life. PM me for a paypal account you can send your money to...

[/Quote]

Money's no use on the other side, and I hope like hell they don't use it wherever we incarnate next.

[/Quote]

Moderator Note

Pymander,

You're still not making any serious contribution to the thread. You are just spamming us with something biblical because you feel it is underrepresented in comparison to other religions. That is no good reason, it is off-topic, and it stops here and now.

[/Quote]

I am quite serious. My religious beliefs are not spam. Other religions were okay. The topic was "the end of the world", and not one KJV reference is off topic. Psalm 46, from which the Edgar Cayce biography "There is a River" derives its name, concerns the reason for the end, and a purpose for the entire age, to end all wars permanently. Zephaniah 3 gives reasons clearly, the means, and the world to come. Not too bad from 2500 years ago. Clear as crystal now.

 

So his assassination in 1963 was a hoax?

 

Yeah, October 1962, my mistake. Castro had great respect for Kennedy ("My Life" 2008). We can only conjecture why the assassination. Better not.

 

You requote the part of Jefferson's act that would prohibit people from forcing someone to denounce their religion before anyone takes them seriously. Again, THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE! Religious documentation that can't be validated is simply NOT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. You can use it for the purposes of your opinion, but where you always run into problems here is when you try to use it to back up the assertions you make. That doesn't work well on a science forum, and you should be aware of that by now instead of claiming censorship.

 

 

We don't ban people for holding a certain belief or point of view, we ban them for breaking the rules, period.

 

 

Not so much word salad as completely meaningless to the charges of censorship you're leveling at us.

 

 

Again, you take a non-mainstream idea, that equivalence principle should be applied more universally, assume it to be true and then argue that it's evidence ignored. Do you begin to see where the real problem lies?

 

 

More temporal tinkering from Jefferson and his damn time machine....

 

 

Hold on here, let's stick to the topic of censorship. This is not another "Why do you believe" thread, this is a very serious charge of censoring someone's beliefs. We're not obligated to follow any kind of democratic freedom of speech here, but we do pride ourselves on allowing all opinions that don't violate our rules.

The answer given Swansont applies here.

 

Ok, it looked to me like he was claiming that only his version of god was being censored but i'll go with simple censorship...

The answer given Swansont applies.

 

No, it's not. Look right over there. We have a whole forum for religious topics and most of them are Christian in nature.

 

 

 

That's an excellent point. To quote myself from another thread:

 

 

 

The answer given Swansont applies.

 

I think it's clear to (almost) everyone that there has been no censorship here. No one edited or deleted another's words, no one was stopped from voicing his/her opinion, and no information was judged unacceptable in and of itself. A misunderstanding about what constitutes scientific evidence seems to be at the heart of this matter. Misunderstandings can be corrected, ignorance can be cured, as long as it's not willful.

 

That said, I have to wonder which is worse, actual censorship, where a person's words are suppressed as unacceptable, or deliberate disinformation like this:

 

where the key phrase, "... as evidence to support an assertion regarding a scientific point" is omitted? Adding insult to injury, Thomas Jefferson is then invoked in an attempt to lend the attack a validity it hardly deserves.

 

Censorship is unjust suppression, but disinformation is malevolent evil, imo.

 

 

The answer supplied to Swansont applies here also, but since you raised the point of willing ignorance, and asuming that you have considered that answer first, let me quote some KJV which combines this question of willing ignorance, with the end of the world scenerio:

3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir

up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy

prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:

3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,

walking after their own lusts,

3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell

asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the

heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in

store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly

men.

2 PETER (lines 37031 to 37037 of 'C:\ECR\The Bible and Apocrypha (KJV).txt')

 

How was it clear 2012 years ago that our end should be so? And what effect does an official denial of our founding religion have on the population? This began in the nineteen hundreds in psychology. The result. Our means are increasing exponentially. Our aims are utterly confused.

 

As far as 'science' is concerned, evidence of intelligence without materialistic explanation exists, personalities wiser than the host, and even a source of unlimited information. The 'principle of equivalence' can be more universally applied, and probably should. This is evidence simply ignored, and that's not science.

[/Quote]

Again, you take a non-mainstream idea, that equivalence principle should be applied more universally, assume it to be true and then argue that it's evidence ignored. Do you begin to see where the real problem lies?

[/Quote]

The principle of equivalence states that, if two theories (hypotheses) cannot be distinguished by experimental results, they are equivalent. That is, conclusions from either are valid. (If this were not true, they COULD be distinguished!) Now Albert Einstein postulated that gravity and acceleration could not be distinguished in a closed laboritory. He postulated that both forces were equivalent. Conclusions made for acceleration, applied to gravity, proved correct. Time slowed, Mercury went crazy near the Sun, light bent around it, an event horizon exists at Gm/rc^2 = 1, etc.

 

This principle applies to the fact that we cannot determine the source of the senses. "Lord, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations." Psalm 90 (by Moses). Conclusions from both hypotheses hold. This is simple logic.

 

Now Einstein could not explain gravity as to cause (possibly photons and antiphotons), only its effects. By the same token, we can not explain the first cause, understood as such by the ancient Egyptians as Amen, a name added to that of many Pharaohs. We can only know of His existence by His effects, both energising, and directing all Force. And this only as manifested to the mind of man as a manifold of senses. These senses, by its own limitations, are the domain of 'science', not science.

Edited August 8, 2012 by Pymander

[JMJones0424]

I am quite serious. My religious beliefs are not spam. Other religions were okay. The topic was "the end of the world", and not one KJV reference is off topic. Psalm 46, from which the Edgar Cayce biography "There is a River" derives its name, concerns the reason for the end, and a purpose for the entire age, to end all wars permanently. Zephaniah 3 gives reasons clearly, the means, and the world to come. Not too bad from 2500 years ago. Clear as crystal now.

 

Your religious beliefs are not spam, but neither are they science. This is a science forum.

The Speculations forum is provided for those people who like to postulate new ideas in the realm of science, or perhaps just make things up for fun. Whatever the case is, this forum is not a home for just any science-related idea you have. It has a few rules:

 

• Speculations must be backed up by evidence or some sort of proof. If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. If you expect any scientific input, you need to provide a case that science can measure.
• Be civil. As wrong as someone might be, there is no reason to insult them, and there's no reason to get angry if someone points out the flaws in your theory, either.
• Keep it in the Speculations forum. Don't try to use your pet theory to answer questions in the mainstream science forums, and don't hijack other threads to advertise your new theory.

Have fun.

There are a plethora of sites on the internet that allow you to discuss beliefs, religious or otherwise, without requiring supporting evidence.

[Pymander]

Your religious beliefs are not spam, but neither are they science. This is a science forum.

[/size][/color]

There are a plethora of sites on the internet that allow you to discuss beliefs, religious or otherwise, without requiring supporting evidence.

 

As far as I understand what you present here, I have violated none of these rules. If so, kindly be more specific than to imply unsupported accusations. I can not, and even if I could, will not pander to a hidden curriculum. This IS the hypocricy of which Thomas Jefferson was speaking. Read it more carefully, perhaps.

[Ringer]

As far as I understand what you present here, I have violated none of these rules. If so, kindly be more specific than to imply unsupported accusations. I can not, and even if I could, will not pander to a hidden curriculum. This IS the hypocricy of which Thomas Jefferson was speaking. Read it more carefully, perhaps.

 

I don't think the curriculum is exactly hidden. This site is called science forums, we discuss science.

 

[edit] Because I'm crazy [/edit]

Edited August 8, 2012 by Ringer

[iNow]

Your religious beliefs are not spam, but...

The beliefs themselves aren't, but the way he litters essentially every damned post with quotes from scripture is most certainly a form of spam. He's pushing a product, and one that is unwelcome to many... at least in context of science-based discussion. It's also a form of quite annoying, unrelated, off-topic proselytization... so there's always that. I suspect that this issue would be much more clearly evident if quotes from the qu'ran were to replace his quotes from the bibble.

[Pymander]

I don't think the curriculum is exactly hidden. This site is called science forums, we discuss science.

 

[edit] Because I'm crazy [/edit]

 

Has it occurred to you that, while science masquerades as shining sanity, it actually suffers from multiple personality disorder. I've said enough already to support that conclusion.

[JMJones0424]

I can't speak for Ringer, but it certainly had not occurred to me that a method of objectively examining and explaining our surroundings could, or in fact does, suffer from a mental disorder. You have written many things, but none can support such an absurd assertion.

[Pymander]

The beliefs themselves aren't, but the way he litters essentially every damned post with quotes from scripture is most certainly a form of spam. He's pushing a product, and one that is unwelcome to many... at least in context of science-based discussion. It's also a form of quite annoying, unrelated, off-topic proselytization... so there's always that. I suspect that this issue would be much more clearly evident if quotes from the qu'ran were to replace his quotes from the bibble.

 

My position here is well supported already. The aims of Jefferson, clearly outlined in his statute, are that peoples beliefs should be protected. I have read the upanishads, the bhagavad gita and heaps none of you will have heard of (Oppenheimer would have, he knew sanskrit). They say the same thing as far as dharma is concerned. They obviously diverge on history. Confidence in such is undermined by the virtual official denial of science, by hiding behind a much popularised but inconsistent theory. The familiar and constitutional Christianity alone exacts the violent reactions as the thread claims. Big Bang is less justified than what I have presented on the grounds of solid science and logic. Even so, time is incomplete, just brushed under the carpet. I guess our fate is sealed.

[swansont]

Pymander, the basic issues are that the End of the world thread is not yours, it was posted or moved to speculations and not religion, and most importantly because it specifically asks "what does science have to say about this?" (albeit in ALLCAPS). It does NOT ask what religious texts have to say on the matter. Thus, posting or citing Biblical passages is completely and utterly off-topic for a scientific discussion, as it does not address the question that was asked. So yes, posting that IS spam. And it is in violation of the rules for being off-topic and arguably for soapboxing. You were officially told it was off-topic in the thread, but were also told you could bring up your discussion in a separate thread. All very above-board, and about as clear as it can be.

 

But in case it's not: There is no hidden curriculum. Science questions deserve science answers is and attitude quite prominently displayed. Which why we have separate discussion areas for scientific speculation, and for religion, philosophy, politics, etc.

[Pymander]

Pymander, the basic issues are that the End of the world thread is not yours, it was posted or moved to speculations and not religion, and most importantly because it specifically asks "what does science have to say about this?" (albeit in ALLCAPS). It does NOT ask what religious texts have to say on the matter. Thus, posting or citing Biblical passages is completely and utterly off-topic for a scientific discussion, as it does not address the question that was asked. So yes, posting that IS spam. And it is in violation of the rules for being off-topic and arguably for soapboxing. You were officially told it was off-topic in the thread, but were also told you could bring up your discussion in a separate thread. All very above-board, and about as clear as it can be.

 

But in case it's not: There is no hidden curriculum. Science questions deserve science answers is and attitude quite prominently displayed. Which why we have separate discussion areas for scientific speculation, and for religion, philosophy, politics, etc.

Apologies. Thanks for your tolerance. Issues are complicated and involved, and elements of psychology hard to fathom. For me, the experience has been enlightening. In return, I hope to have opened some doors that don't just go nowhere, for those interested in alternative ideas.