Egg the Trinity

The Egg and i -
A Simple Explanation of The Trinity

http://www.cafelogos.org/eggandi.html

There have been many attempts to explain the “Trinity’” the relationship between God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Some have used examples such as water, watermelons and eggs; the principle behind those illustrations is that even though each thing is one, it is also three. Water can be ice and steam, yet they are the same element. The watermelon has a skin, pulp and seeds; the egg is shell, yolk and egg white.
     I don’t know how our majestic God feels about being compared to watermelons and eggs, but He is also a loving Father, and like any father, I believe God would seek to provide simple explanations so His little children can understand. I don’t believe that God wishes us to be confused about the “Three” that are so apparent throughout the Old and New Testaments.

     I think the illustration that represents the “Trinity” most accurately is the egg example.
     The yolk represents God’s “Person,” His Being, and His Holiness which generates Light that no man can approach (I Timothy 6:16).
     The egg white represents God’s Spirit. Because God’s Person is unapproachable, the Spirit “White” acts as insulation, for we know that it is through the Holy Spirit that God can communicate, speak through and interact with mankind. A good example would be an electrical cord. We can touch the cord, but not the power it is insulating.

     The egg shell is the image of the yolk and the white. Jesus’ Person is the image of God’s Person (Hebrews 1:3), and the Invisible Spirit of the Father that is in Him - “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (II Corinthians 5:19). This is why Jesus said, “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

     The white of an egg is the connection between the yolk and the shell. Jesus’ Person is joined to the Father by the Father’s Holy Spirit, because God’s Spirit is also Jesus’ Spirit - "But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His" (Romans 8:9). – “I and My Father are One” (John 10:30). In Jesus “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9)
     In humans, our spirits are designed to operate with and be united to the soul which is the person of anyone and so it is with our Egg. The Spirit white is connected to Jesus’ Person – “I will come to you” (John 14:18) and the Father’s Person, “We will come to him and make our abode with him” (John 14:23).

     It is the Father’s desire to join His Spirit with all of us as well for He has said – “They shall be My sons and daughters” (II Corinthians 6:18). In order to accomplish this union with God and man, He allowed His Shell to be broken with the weight of our sins to cleanse our souls so His holiness can approach, for God cannot look upon sin (Habakkuk 1:13). Through the brokenness of the Shell, His Son, the Spirit white pours out into our beings through our faith in what was done and believers are joined with the yolk, for it is by One Spirit we have access to God the Father (Ephesians 2:18).

     Now God can be in you by His Spirit! You are an egg! - well, sort of. But you cannot be broken when your faith is in Jesus, for the Spirit of the Son that lives in us and gives us the voice through which we cry “Abba, Father,” (Galatians 4:6,) this Spirit of the Father that dwells within you is there to strengthen, protect and guard your person. And when the time comes when death is allowed to crack your shell in its final hour and your believing soul is released; the Spirit of God that holds you will carry you in His arms to your heavenly home because –“ In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there you may be also” (John14:2, 3).
     It is a miraculous invention, the egg. This little child cannot look at one without experiencing a profound sense of wonderment and awe.



Free ebook!- Understanding the Biblical Trinity from the Scriptures - It's all about God's Love for You

The Egg and I - Part Two

    When we look at the egg as an example of the Trinity, we must view it in its entirety. The word Trinity comes from the Latin word trinitas which means tri-unity. The Trinity is a tri-unity, a unity of Three, - God the Father, Jesus, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. When we separate them we can fall into the error of tritheism, which is the worship of three individual deities as one.

     In Biblical Trinitarianism we can never have one without the other because they are one Spirit; each is the totality of the other which means we cannot have the Holy Spirit without the Father and the Son, “We will come” (into the believer through the Holy Spirit, John 14:23), and we cannot have the Son without The Father whose Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20). Thus the Father is in Jesus –" I and My Father are One" (John 10:30), "The Father is in Me" (John 14:10) God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (II Corinthians 5:19). In Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). Likewise we cannot have the Father or His Spirit without the Son – “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by Me”- John 14:6.

     If we separate them we still may have God the Egg yolk, God the Holy Spirit Egg white and God the Son, the Egg shell/image, three individual parts of an Egg, but they cannot be a Trinity, or tri-unity unless they are unified and are seen as one Egg, so to speak.
     The egg example, while not perfect or complete by any means, will still give us a basic understanding of the primary principle of Biblical Trinitarianism.

     When we view the egg in its entirety we have the Biblical Trinity, One that is Three.
     When we separate them and view them as individual deities, that is the error of tritheism, which is the worship of three individual gods as one.
     When we see them as three individual spirits, (God is one Spirit (John 4:24), then that is the blasphemy of polytheism which is the worship of more than one God.

copyright 2009 by H.D. Shively

below the jump, from a comment I found

Exponential Entrepreneur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Ismail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(drink)
sort of milk, only food need,,
Also note there is a beef steak may be only grown in a petri-dish

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201764464/building-the-future-with-exponential-organisations

Building the future with exponential organisations

Updated at 5:08 pm on 19 August 2015

• Share on Twitter
 
• Share on Facebook
 
• Share on Google Plus
 
• Share on Reddit
 
• Share on Linked In
 
• Share via email

Salim Ismail Photo CC BY 2.0 Jay Cross.

Tech entrepreneur Salim Ismail is the author of Exponential Organisations and Founding Executive Director of Silicon Valley based, Singularity University, which is part think-tank, part business-incubator.

He is about to visit New Zealand as a guest of Callaghan Innovation, to speak about how to build a start-up at a time when disruptive technologies and globalisation are transforming the way we do business.

Salim Ismail discusses exponential technological growth and is optimistic about the impact on sectors like healthcare and finance as well as our systems of governance.

He argues that it is time for a new model - which he calls the Exponential Organisation.

• Listen (duration 33′ :51″ )
• Download: Ogg  |  MP3

Details of Salim Ismail's talk are available on the Callaghan Innovation website.

Colder or Hotter before?

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever
APObama Global Warming
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen
BY: MIKE VAN BIEZEN DECEMBER 23, 2015
475 Comments 146441
It made sense.  Knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that our industrialized world is adding a large amount of it to the atmosphere on a yearly basis, I accepted the premise that this would cause global temperatures to rise.  But one day about 7 years ago, I looked at the ubiquitous graph showing the “global” temperature of the last 150 years and noticed something odd.  It was subtle, and as I found out later, disguised so that it would be overlooked.  There appeared to be a period of about 40 years between 1940 and 1980 where the global temperatures actually declined a bit.  As a data analysis expert, I could not ignore that subtle hint and began to look into it a little more.  Forty years is a long time, and while carbon dioxide concentrations were increasing exponentially over the same period, I could not overlook that this showed an unexpected shift in the correlation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations. Thus I began to look into it a little further and here are some of the results 7 years later.

Before we begin, let’s establish what we know to be correct.  The global average temperature has increased since the 1980’s.  Since the 1980’s glaciers around the world are receding and the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean has lost ice since the 1980’s, especially during the summer months.  The average global temperature for the last 10 years is approximately 0.35 degrees centigrade higher than it was during the 1980’s. The global warming community has exploited these facts to “prove” that human activity (aka burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of these increasing temperatures.  But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity.  The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data.

Here are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”:

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.

The all-time high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983.  By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records.  In the United States, which has more weather stations than any other location in the world, more cold temperature records by state were set more recently than hot temperature records.  When the temperature records for each state were considered for each month of the year, a total of 600 data points (50 states x 12 months), again cold temperature records were set in far greater numbers more recently and hot temperature records were set longer ago.  This is directly contradictory to what would be expected if global warming were real.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly:

Starting at the end of 1978, satellites began to collect temperature data from around the globe.  For the next 20 years, until 1998, the global average temperature remained unchanged in direct contradiction to the earth-bound weather station data, which indicated “unprecedented” temperature increases.  In 1998 there was a strong El Nino year with high temperatures, which returned to pre-1998 levels until 2001.  In 2001 there was a sudden jump in the global temperature of about 0.3 degrees centigrade which then remained at about that level for the next 14 years, with a very slight overall decrease in the global temperatures during that time.

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:

If the current temperatures are compared to those of the 1930’s one would find nothing remarkable.  For many places around the world, the 1930’s were the warmest decade of the last 100 years, including those found in Greenland.  Comparing today’s temperatures to the 1980’s is like comparing our summer temperatures to those in April, rather than those of last summer.  It is obvious why the global warming community does this, and very misleading (or deceiving).

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:

Many places around the world experienced a quite significant and persistent cooling trend to the point where scientists began to wonder if the world was beginning to slide into a new ice age period.  For example, Greenland experienced some of the coldest years in 120 years during the 1980’s, as was the case in many other places around the world.  During that same 40-year period, the CO2 levels around the world increased by 17%, which is a very significant increase.  If global temperatures decreased by such a significant amount over 40 years while atmospheric CO2 increased by such a large amount we can only reach two conclusions: 1. There must be a weak correlation, at best, between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, 2. There must be stronger factors driving climate and temperature than atmospheric CO2.


5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:

It has been shown that nighttime temperatures recorded by many weather stations have been artificially raised by the expulsion of radiant heat collected and stored during the daytime by concrete and brick structures such as houses, buildings, roads, and also cars.  Since land area of cities and large towns containing these weather stations only make up a very small fraction of the total land area, this influence on global average temperature data is significant.  Since the daytime and nighttime temperatures are combined to form an average, these artificially-raised nighttime temperatures skew the average data.  When one only looks at daytime temperatures only from larger urban areas, the “drastic global warming” is no longer visible.  (This can also be seen when looking at nearby rural area weather station data, which is more indicative of the true climate of that area).

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:

Contrary to what would be assumed when listening to global warming banter or while watching An Inconvenient Truth, higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels and lower temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around.  Any college freshman chemistry student knows that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperatures and thus Earth’s oceans will release large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere when the water is warmer and will absorb more CO2 when the water is colder.  That is why the CO2 level during the ice ages was so much lower than the levels today.  That doesn’t take away the fact that we are artificially raising the atmospheric CO2 levels, but just because we do, that doesn’t mean that this will cause temperatures to increase in any significant way.  The 40-year cooling period between 1940 and 1980 appear to support that premise.  What we can conclude is that the ice ages were not caused by changes in the atmospheric CO2 levels and that other stronger factors were involved with these very large climate changes.



7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:

The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface.  The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers.  Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth.  However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2.  It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth.  That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures and why after the CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has increased only 0.8 degrees centigrade, even if we want to contribute all of that increase to atmospheric CO2 increases and none of it to natural causes.

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:

Even in the 1990 IPCC report a chart appeared that showed the medieval warm period as having had warmer temperatures than those currently being experienced.  But it is hard to convince people about global warming with that information, so five years later a new graph was presented, now known as the famous hockey stick graph, which did away with the medieval warm period.  Yet the evidence is overwhelming at so many levels that warmer periods existed on Earth during the medieval warm period as well as during Roman Times and other time periods during the last 10,000 years.  There is plenty of evidence found in the Dutch archives that shows that over the centuries, parts of the Netherlands disappeared beneath the water during these warm periods, only to appear again when the climate turned colder.  The famous Belgian city of Brugge, once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline.  Consequently, during the medieval warm period the Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland and even along the coast of Canada, where they enjoyed the warmer temperatures, until the climate turned cold again, after which they perished from Greenland and Iceland became ice-locked again during the bitter cold winters.  The camps promoting global warming have been systematically erasing mention of these events in order to bolster the notion that today’s climate is unusual compared to our recent history.

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years

The notion of melting glaciers as prove positive that global warming is real has no real scientific basis.  Glaciers have been melting for over 150 years.  It is no secret that glaciers advanced to unprecedented levels in recent human history during the period known as the Little Ice Age.  Many villages in the French, Swiss, and Italian Alps

A simple summation agw

An interesting comment that parallels my thoughts and questions in parts

As an engineer I find when these issues arise it is best to get as much accurate data as possible and trust your instincts and training. Interestingly it is difficult and almost impossible to find hard proven scientific data supporting the global warming view.(its silly to call it Climate change as the climate is always changing). There is on the other hand a large body of work available by scientists ruling out global warming. I could reference all sorts of information including articles on how NASA has fudged data to detailed scientific explanations of the chemistry (CO2 is a gas remember). However in all of the research I did thsi summary is possibly the best and clearest I have come across.

“The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here’s why:
Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, averages (over a year) some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.
But that’s only the beginning. We’ve had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That’s one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming – and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history – it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.
The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.
The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

ADDENDUM
What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks “Climategate” to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW “cause” has taken on a life of its own.
Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc – after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.
In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.
I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand “Progressive” ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

Just one lone jihadi

"It's Just One Lone Jihadi. Perfectly Politically Correct Political Music. NOT! "
2 minutes 49 secs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXKHR1sC1qw
from Elsa's Emporium.

It is just one
You must not generalize it, you must not advertise it;
For the one who is islamphobic, a right wing lynch generator; it is all your fault.

Great for a laugh

Just flowers at a funeral, Paris

These tears, tweets and tributes will not stop the terrorists

 | Permalink

Andrew Bolt Blog 

Many of the gestures are well meaning. Grieving is necessary. Solidarity is important.

But can I respectfully point out the following:

Lighting up buildings in red, white and blue will not stop the terrorists.

Singing La Marseillaise will not stop the terrorists.

Tweeting #IStandWithParis will not stop the terrorists.

Tweeting the Eiffel Tower peace sign will not stop the terrorists.

Saying you condemn the killings will not stop the terrorists.

Showing you stand in solidarity with Paris will not stop the terrorists.

Saying you are ”shoulder to shoulder” with Paris will not stop the terrorists.

Saying we will not be cowed by terrorism will not stop the terrorists.

Saying the terrorism is an attack on all humanity will not stop the terrorists.

Tears, candles, hymns, vigils, prayers, speeches, condolence books, hashtags, poems, meetings - none of that will stop the terrorists.

A challenge to our leaders: tell us precisely what you plan to do that really will stop the terrorists.

Spare us tears and tributes. Spare us platitudes and sentiment.  Give us plans. Action.

Tell us about reforming Islam, controlling immigration, shutting down hate-preachers and destroying the Islamic State and al Qaeda.

The rest is just flowers at a funeral. It will not stop the next one

Red States Blue States?

Well I never it comes from democrat states and goes to Republican states.

I’ve been seeing that argument for years , not just the many times you’ve introduced it into a debate. Have you ever looked into the detail? Ever actually thought about it? Of course you haven’t and I’ve simply treated it as yet another boring talking point, but I guess I have to now …..

Aside from anything else, to accept the argument you’d have to accept that the residents are willingly voting to destroy their own benefits, which would be wonderful but unlikely.

In any case it’s crap because it relies on Presidential elections only to define “Red” from “Blue” states, and is stuck with the 2004 results. But looking at the list of “Red” states it makes no sense to just have that definition. A state might vote GOP for president while being solidly Democrat at the Federal Senate and House levels.

You do realise that the basic definition itself has only been around since about 2000 and has largely only been applied to Presidential elections? To use this as a base going forward for sophisticated tax and spending analysis is to strangle the argument at birth.

For example, looking at the list of “Welfare” states I see New Mexico, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Colorado. New Mexico, Virginia, and New Hampshire, which have all been evenly split on presidential candidates for the last thirty years. How can they be “Red” or “Blue”. On the bottom end of the welfare scale – the “good guys” in your endlessly Manichean world – I see Nevada and Colorado, who both voted for both Bush 43 wins. New Hampshire voted for Kerry, Obama, and Obama – but they’ve only elected one Democrat Senator since 1960! How the fuck can you call North Dakota, Louisiana, and West Virginia “Red” states when they’ve voted overwhelmingly Democratic for the past thirty years? South Dakota and New Mexico fail the same test. West Virginia finally got a Republican senator in 2014 – the first since 1959!

Similarly with Governors and state Houes and Senates, the GOP growth in that area being very recent. Are you suggesting that the voters turfed out Democrats who were on the verge of making huge spending cuts and cut down on their Federal largesse?

And this is before we even start down the track of a detailed examination of the tax and spending underlying those figures which – given this asshole’s partisan take on things – is probably no more trustworthy than his “Red” vs “Blue” definition.

Mandatory spending (Medicare and Social Security – which can’t be touched legally) vs discretionary spending (which is mainly the military) is just for starters. You are aware of the millions of retirees who’ve fled to the Sunbelt states from the colder Northern ones no?

And again, if you actually think about this from a higher perspective – if the analysis was true, would the Democrats not have done everything they could to correct this imbalance when they held the purse strings from 2007-2011 and when, according to this article, it would cost them nothing electorally as they punished their enemies and rewarded their friends. The fact that they did nothing is yet another indicator that it’s a bullshit talking point of Democratic activists.

No right not to be offended.

Professor’s EPIC Class Intro Has Gone VIRAL; Here’s Why

BY SIERRA MARLEE - 725 COMMENTS · IN US

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/professors-epic-class-intro-has-gone-viral-heres-why

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• Pinterest
• E-mail

Professor Mike Adams took liberalism and progressivism to task in his viral class introduction that will leave you cheering.

In a time where college students are offended by pretty much everything, one professor at UNC-Wilmington decided to cut through the rhetoric and let his students know that they aren’t the special snowflakes liberals and their parents would have them believe.

His epic class introduction has gone viral, and for good reason: this is the most common sense lecture to come out of any college in a long time.He begins by letting his students know that they don’t have the right to be offended and the rest you simply have to read for yourself.

Welcome back to class, students! I am Mike Adams your criminology professor here at UNC-Wilmington. Before we get started with the course I need to address an issue that is causing problems here at UNCW and in higher education all across the country. I am talking about the growing minority of students who believe they have a right to be free from being offended. If we don’t reverse this dangerous trend in our society there will soon be a majority of young people who will need to walk around in plastic bubble suits to protect them in the event that they come into contact with a dissenting viewpoint. That mentality is unworthy of an American. It’s hardly worthy of a Frenchman.

Let’s get something straight right now. You have no right to be unoffended. You have a right to be offended with regularity. It is the price you pay for living in a free society. If you don’t understand that you are confused and dangerously so. In part, I blame your high school teachers for failing to teach you basic civics before you got your diploma. Most of you went to the public high schools, which are a disaster. Don’t tell me that offended you. I went to a public high school.

Of course, your high school might not be the problem. It is entirely possible that the main reason why so many of you are confused about free speech is that piece of paper hanging on the wall right over there. Please turn your attention to that ridiculous document that is framed and hanging by the door. In fact, take a few minutes to read it before you leave class today. It is our campus speech code. It specifically says that there is a requirement that everyone must only engage in discourse that is “respectful.” That assertion is as ludicrous as it is illegal. I plan to have that thing ripped down from every classroom on campus before I retire.

One of my grandfathers served in World War I. My step-grandfather served in World War II. My sixth great grandfather enlisted in the American Revolution when he was only thirteen. These great men did not fight so we could simply relinquish our rights to the enemy within our borders. That enemy is the Marxists who run our public universities. If you are a Marxist and I just offended you, well, that’s tough. I guess they don’t make communists like they used to.

Unbelievably, a student once complained to the Department chairwoman that my mention of God and a Creator was a violation of Separation of Church and State. Let me be as clear as I possibly can: If any of you actually think that my decision to paraphrase the Declaration of Independence in the course syllabus is unconstitutional then you suffer from severe intellectual hernia.

Indeed, it takes hard work to become stupid enough to think the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. If you agree with the student who made that complaint then you are probably just an anti-religious zealot. Therefore, I am going to ask you to do exactly three things and do them in the exact order that I specify.

First, get out of my class. You can fill out the drop slip over at James Hall. Just tell them you don’t believe in true diversity and you want to be surrounded by people who agree with your twisted interpretation of the Constitution simply because they are the kind of people who will protect you from having your beliefs challenged or your feelings hurt.

Second, withdraw from the university. If you find that you are actually relieved because you will no longer be in a class where your beliefs might be challenged then you aren’t ready for college. Go get a job building houses so you can work with some illegal aliens who will help you gain a better appreciation of what this country has to offer.Finally, if this doesn’t work then I would simply ask you to get the hell out of the country. The ever-growing thinned-skinned minority you have joined is simply ruining life in this once-great nation. Please move to some place like Cuba where you can enjoy the company of communists and get excellent health care. Just hop on a leaky boat and start paddling your way towards utopia. You will not be missed.

Professor Mike Adams previously made news when he won a legal battle after being subjected to retaliatory action by the college after he expressed Christian, religious and politically conservative views.

The jury found that these were the motivating factors behind the college’s decision not to promote Adams, and awarded him damages.

Do you agree with what Adams had to say? Let us know in the comments!
-------------------------------------
From a comments on another blog below the jump break

carbon dioxide molecules the trace gas

PJM (112 comments) says: 
November 6th, 2015 at 8:22 pm

At a magnification of X 20,000,000, carbon dioxide molecules would have a diameter of 40 mm (the same as a ping-pong ball) and at a concentration of 380 ppm (the approximate concentration currently), they would be equispaced at 7.8 metres at sea level, and 9.8 metres at an altitude of 5,500 metres. This explains why carbon dioxide is called a trace gas.

In the light of this fundamental, physical knowledge, anybody who believes that CO2 could have any measurable, significant effect on absorbing infrared radiation (the thermal end of the spectrum) from the earth (the so-called greenhouse effect) ether has rocks in their head of believes in fairies in the bottom of the garden!

Needless to say, there is no physical evidence that carbon dioxide has any measurable, significant effect on absorbing infrared radiation from the earth (the so-called greenhouse effect).

All of the so-called findings of the alarmist so-called climate ‘scientists’ are based on computer models, which have been proven time after time after time to be seriously flawed. This explains why their doomsday predictions have never eventuated. They never will, for the reasons explained above!

This paper by one of the USA’s award-winning atmospheric physicists explains in detail the physics involved:

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Perhaps somebody should draw the attention of both Tonkin & Taylor and the Mayor of Christchurch to this blogpost.

Gun Shootings Australia

So many guns. So many violent people. Melbourne has changed

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/so_many_guns_so_many_violent_people_melbourne_has_changed/

I don’t recall this level of gun violence before in all the years I’ve lived in Melbourne. Something has changed:

Gunfire has narrowly missed a woman’s head in a terrifying road rage incident north-east of Melbourne. The 22-year-old woman and her passenger, a 17-year-old boy, was allegedly tailgated by a four-wheel-drive from Donvale to Healesville before its driver fired shots through her car’s back window.

Also on Sunday: 

[Racing Victoria Chief Steward]Terry Bailey ... was relaxing with his wife and teenage daughters in the back yard when, at 9.20pm on Sunday, bullets from a semi-automatic gun tore into the front door.

Police have been told that about a week earlier, a bikie wearing gang colours rode past the home of Racing Victoria head of integrity­ Dayle Brown.

And this morning:

A FOUR-YEAR-OLD boy has been injured and a man is fighting for his life after shots were fired at a house in Melbourne’s north. Shots were fired into the man’s home on Darebin Drive in Thomastown about 3.45am.

From a week ago:

In 2010-11 there were 6,922 [gun] offences compared to 2014/15 when there were 14,404 offences…

In Lalor overnight a family escaped serious injury after as many as 20 shots were fired from what’s believed to be a machine gun in an early morning drive-by shooting… 

On Wednesday night a senior bikie figure was gunned down near his Narre Warren home.

A family was also targeted in a drive-by shooting in Broadmeadows in the early hours of Monday morning while a car was shot at nearby on Sunday night. 

From June:

Police are discovering guns in cars every two days in Melbourne’s north-west, which has been dubbed the “red zone” by officers concerned about a growing gangster culture in the region.

The culture in question isn’t just a gangster one, as is clear from the list of shootings in this report:

February 3, 2015 M16 assault rifle and Thureon machine-gun seized in police raids on homes in Point Cook, Wyndham Vale, Tarneit and Werribee. Number of people arrested. Raids sparked after a $290,000 armed robbery of a cash transport van in Sunbury. 

April 19, 2am Khaled Abouhasna, 39, gunned down in his driveway in Altona Meadows. Under investigation.

March 3, 6.30pm Handguns, long arms and an automatic machine-gun found by police in an intercepted Holden Commodore in Elizabeth Drive, Sunbury. A 23-year-old woman has been charged.

May 21, 5.40pm A gym owner is shot at twice outside a house in Mockridge Avenue, Burnside, and survives. Under investigation.

May 31, 4.30pm Man shot in the leg in a road rage incident off the Western Highway near Bacchus Marsh. Two children in the car. Under investigation.

June 10, 5.30pm Ali Duyar, 34, shot in a Bloomfield Road house in Doncaster and dies in hospital the next day. Three men fled the scene. Under investigation.

UPDATE

This morning’s shooting in Thomastown is now a murder. A 3AW reporter says neighbours held shouting in foreign languages from the house. Many residents in the street have little English.

Andrew's columns appear in the Herald Sun, Daily Telegraph and Advertiser. He runs Australia's most-read political blog and hosts Ten's The Bolt Report each Sunday at 10am. See more of

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/so_many_guns_so_many_violent_people_melbourne_has_changed/

‘A Little Gun History’
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-gun-history/

“A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!”

Quote: Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.