http://www.ourcivilisation.com/ozone/king.htm
The Nonsense That is Ozone-Depletion
by Ken Ring (I so wonder at his credibility, and will keep this for future reference and thinking)
"Cancer threat as deadly UV rays build up" reported the New Zealand Herald on September 10th 2006 . Referring to a "disturbing new study" the writer reported a finding that "increases in UV radiation over summer have occurred because of ozone depletion caused by pollution". The article contained three assumptions:
1. UV (Ultraviolet light) has increased long term,
2. Ozone protects us from UV (and less now means less protection),
3. That ozone depletion is caused by humans polluting our natural environment.
Unfortunately, these claims are false on all counts. In order to simply understand the relationship between UV (sunshine), ozone and oxygen (air), think about what you see when you go to the beach. The order of things is:
Water — Surf — Beach
The boundary where the water hits the beach is called surf, and in the upper atmosphere, the boundary where the sunlight hits the air is termed the ozone layer, because in that region ozone is produced as a result of the UV acting on the oxygen, in other words where the sunlight hits the air.
Sunlight — Ozone — Air
Just as the surf cannot in any way protect the land from the sea, ozone cannot 'protect' the air and our environment that is below it from UV. A result cannot be defined as a protector. To lament that ozone depletion is taking away "our protection" is the same as crying that surfers are wearing down the surf, and as the surf is all there is holding back the ocean, when the surf goes (due to human behavior) the water will flood over the land and destroy mankind.
As with so many theories, threads are tied together to build a case. The case is then launched to the media to attract attention. The attention is then added to by 'further findings', 'disturbing new studies' and 'concerns' The end result is the willing granting of research funds to research "the problem". If the Cancer word can be attached, so much the better for the case. The public will donate any amount of money for cancer research. It only wants to see the case for it spelled out in a conclusive-sounding way.
The Case
We do know that ozone exists. We know that there are two ozone depletion zones: over each of the Earth's poles. We know the depletion zone over Antarctic is bigger than that over the Arctic. We have found that CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) which are man-made substances commonly used in refrigeration and aerosol cans, contain chlorine. And we know that chlorine can destroy ozone.
At this point let's revisit school science. We breathe in oxygen and expell it as carbon dioxide. 02 is two oxygen atoms stuck together. Given sufficient energy applied, now and then three oxygen atoms will stick together, making an 03 molecule, which is called ozone. The energy required for this can come from electrical discharge through the air, such as lightning, or from the sun in the form of UV sunlight. You can smell ozone if you sniff around an electric motor that has arcing around the brushes — the pungent smell is the 03.
When in space the Sun's energy races down here to meet Earth's rising air, a certain amount of 03 is produced. But like the surf, it is merely the result of the photo-chemical process between oxygen and UV light. But it is the photo-chemical process itself which protects us; the ozone is a mere by-product. The air itself absorbs most of the UV radiation and disperses it. As the air contains ozone, so the ozone also combines with the UV. In the same way, if you dropped a cup of ink into the sea it would spread out and disperse. And if either the air or sunlight pack up, we will have long since suffocated or frozen to death before we start developing cancer.
Friday, November 19, 2010
The Sin of Racism
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/sin-of-racism.html
Monday,
November 15, 2010
The Sin of Racism
The photo at right serves as a Rorschach blot for postmodern race-consciousness.
The majority of white Americans who see it will react with a sense of distaste and unease — and maybe even guilt, if their politics lean towards the Progressive.
Some of our regular readers will be concerned that I may harm this blog’s “reputation” by posting such inflammatory images.
Strangers who happen upon this post will probably say to themselves, “Aha! Here’s another racist hate site! I knew it!”
And conservatives of a certain stripe will think I’m a limp-wristed candy-ass coward for failing to follow through completely and embrace whatever racial ideology they subscribe to.
No matter what, it’s impossible to look at the image and see it for what it is.
A package of Rastus Cigars.
A cultural artifact from the early 20th century.
An hommage to a well-known Vaudeville tap-dancer.
A product designed to appeal to the tastes and predilections of a particular time and place.
At the time the package was printed and sold, the design was not particularly remarkable. Fans of Rastus would have appreciated seeing his picture. Most white people probably found it vaguely amusing, in a low-class way. Some must have been disgusted at its vulgarity. A certain proportion were undoubtedly repelled by an insulting caricature of a Negro.
But, all in all, it wasn’t that big a deal. It was just another product on the market.
How times have changed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is very concerned about racism.
Back in the 1990s, when I was active in our diocese, the head office in Norfolk would periodically organize workshops to combat the “Sin of Racism”. They insisted that each parish host a traveling Episcopalian dog-and-pony show on the topic, a workshop designed to bring racial awareness to local churches and help them own up to the sin of racism, of which each and every parishioner was guilty.
Monday,
November 15, 2010
The Sin of Racism
The photo at right serves as a Rorschach blot for postmodern race-consciousness.
The majority of white Americans who see it will react with a sense of distaste and unease — and maybe even guilt, if their politics lean towards the Progressive.
Some of our regular readers will be concerned that I may harm this blog’s “reputation” by posting such inflammatory images.
Strangers who happen upon this post will probably say to themselves, “Aha! Here’s another racist hate site! I knew it!”
And conservatives of a certain stripe will think I’m a limp-wristed candy-ass coward for failing to follow through completely and embrace whatever racial ideology they subscribe to.
No matter what, it’s impossible to look at the image and see it for what it is.
A package of Rastus Cigars.
A cultural artifact from the early 20th century.
An hommage to a well-known Vaudeville tap-dancer.
A product designed to appeal to the tastes and predilections of a particular time and place.
At the time the package was printed and sold, the design was not particularly remarkable. Fans of Rastus would have appreciated seeing his picture. Most white people probably found it vaguely amusing, in a low-class way. Some must have been disgusted at its vulgarity. A certain proportion were undoubtedly repelled by an insulting caricature of a Negro.
But, all in all, it wasn’t that big a deal. It was just another product on the market.
How times have changed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Episcopal Church (ECUSA) is very concerned about racism.
Back in the 1990s, when I was active in our diocese, the head office in Norfolk would periodically organize workshops to combat the “Sin of Racism”. They insisted that each parish host a traveling Episcopalian dog-and-pony show on the topic, a workshop designed to bring racial awareness to local churches and help them own up to the sin of racism, of which each and every parishioner was guilty.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Humanities to -- ??????
http://mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/11/defend_the_humanitiesa_slogan.html
OUR ESSAYS
« Kaplan University and the Short-Changing of Minority Women | Main | The Douglas Debate--No Lincoln This Time »
November 15, 2010
'Defend the Humanities'--A Dishonest Slogan
By John M. Ellis
College foreign language and literature programs have been in decline for some time, first shrinking, then being consolidated with other departments, and now in a growing number of cases actually closed down. But the recent decision to eliminate French, Italian, Russian and Classics at SUNY Albany appears to have struck a nerve, and caused an outcry: "Defend the Humanities!"
It's a cry that has been heard many times in the past. As the segment of the university that has no direct link to a career-providing profession, the humanities have regularly been called upon to justify their usefulness, but the justification is easy to make, and it is an honorable one that instantly commands respect.
The case generally goes like this: exposure to the best of our civilization's achievements and thought gives us the trained minds of broadly educated people. We learn about ourselves by studying our history, and understanding how it has shaped us and the institutions we live by. As European civilization developed it produced a range of extraordinary thinkers who grappled memorably with questions that will always be with us, leaving a rich and varied legacy of outstanding thought on philosophical, ethical, religious, social and political matters. Its creative writers left a record of inspired reflection on human life and its challenges. Studying the humanities make us better prepared for civic life and for living itself, and better citizens.
And so "Defend the Humanities" is a most attractive flag to sail under. The trouble is that for those who are now using it, it is a flag of convenience only, and a deeply dishonest one. For the conception of the humanities set out above is despised by those who now ask for our help in saving the departments they run. Long ago, they took aim at it, defeated it and abolished it, and that is precisely the source of their present troubles. The story of how they did it and why is well-known. A virulent strain of Marxist radicalism took refuge in college humanities programs just as it was being abandoned in the real world because of catastrophic results world-wide. This created a mismatch of temperaments: humanistic scholars are naturally animated by a profound respect for the legacy of our past, but all the instincts of political radicals go in the opposite direction. Their natural instinct is to denigrate the past in order to make the case for the sweeping social change that they want. That's why they don't look at the past and see
accumulated knowledge and wisdom, but instead only a story of bigotry, inequality and racial and sexual prejudice that needs to be swept aside.
OUR ESSAYS
« Kaplan University and the Short-Changing of Minority Women | Main | The Douglas Debate--No Lincoln This Time »
November 15, 2010
'Defend the Humanities'--A Dishonest Slogan
By John M. Ellis
College foreign language and literature programs have been in decline for some time, first shrinking, then being consolidated with other departments, and now in a growing number of cases actually closed down. But the recent decision to eliminate French, Italian, Russian and Classics at SUNY Albany appears to have struck a nerve, and caused an outcry: "Defend the Humanities!"
It's a cry that has been heard many times in the past. As the segment of the university that has no direct link to a career-providing profession, the humanities have regularly been called upon to justify their usefulness, but the justification is easy to make, and it is an honorable one that instantly commands respect.
The case generally goes like this: exposure to the best of our civilization's achievements and thought gives us the trained minds of broadly educated people. We learn about ourselves by studying our history, and understanding how it has shaped us and the institutions we live by. As European civilization developed it produced a range of extraordinary thinkers who grappled memorably with questions that will always be with us, leaving a rich and varied legacy of outstanding thought on philosophical, ethical, religious, social and political matters. Its creative writers left a record of inspired reflection on human life and its challenges. Studying the humanities make us better prepared for civic life and for living itself, and better citizens.
And so "Defend the Humanities" is a most attractive flag to sail under. The trouble is that for those who are now using it, it is a flag of convenience only, and a deeply dishonest one. For the conception of the humanities set out above is despised by those who now ask for our help in saving the departments they run. Long ago, they took aim at it, defeated it and abolished it, and that is precisely the source of their present troubles. The story of how they did it and why is well-known. A virulent strain of Marxist radicalism took refuge in college humanities programs just as it was being abandoned in the real world because of catastrophic results world-wide. This created a mismatch of temperaments: humanistic scholars are naturally animated by a profound respect for the legacy of our past, but all the instincts of political radicals go in the opposite direction. Their natural instinct is to denigrate the past in order to make the case for the sweeping social change that they want. That's why they don't look at the past and see
accumulated knowledge and wisdom, but instead only a story of bigotry, inequality and racial and sexual prejudice that needs to be swept aside.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Where do you take the temperature
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29808
Interface, Climate Change IPCC's political conclusions
Official Climate Science Ignores Essential and Critical Details Right At The Surface
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, November 11, 2010 Few people know that skin is an organ; even fewer know it’s the largest organ of the body. It is the contact, called an interface, between two completely different environments; the body and the world. It controls movement of gases, liquids and solids in both directions all the time. The surface of the Earth is similar as the interface between the atmosphere and the underlying surfaces. Accurate measurement and understanding of processes are critical to what is happening in the atmosphere, under ground and in the oceans. Unless we understand the dynamics across the interface we will not know what is going on above and below the surface.
Science divides the world and its atmosphere into layers depending on what they are studying. For example, geophysicists start in the centre of the Earth with the Solid Inner Core extending through the Liquid Outer Core, the Mantle and the crust. Climate science identifies layers (Figure 1) but even at this point we begin seeing the limitations. The layers are based on energy from the Sun. They ignore volumes of geothermal energy that move through the crust, especially under the oceans where the crust is thinner and more perforated.
Simple, but major, differences between land and water illustrate the problems.
Interface, Climate Change IPCC's political conclusions
Official Climate Science Ignores Essential and Critical Details Right At The Surface
By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, November 11, 2010 Few people know that skin is an organ; even fewer know it’s the largest organ of the body. It is the contact, called an interface, between two completely different environments; the body and the world. It controls movement of gases, liquids and solids in both directions all the time. The surface of the Earth is similar as the interface between the atmosphere and the underlying surfaces. Accurate measurement and understanding of processes are critical to what is happening in the atmosphere, under ground and in the oceans. Unless we understand the dynamics across the interface we will not know what is going on above and below the surface.
Science divides the world and its atmosphere into layers depending on what they are studying. For example, geophysicists start in the centre of the Earth with the Solid Inner Core extending through the Liquid Outer Core, the Mantle and the crust. Climate science identifies layers (Figure 1) but even at this point we begin seeing the limitations. The layers are based on energy from the Sun. They ignore volumes of geothermal energy that move through the crust, especially under the oceans where the crust is thinner and more perforated.
Simple, but major, differences between land and water illustrate the problems.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
conservative to social democracy
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=215813
Henry Lamb is the author of "The Rise of Global Governance," chairman of Sovereignty International and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21 Inc.
The philosophical foundation of a republic includes the idea that people are sovereign and that the government people create derives its power from the consent of the governed. A social democracy thrives on the idea that the government is sovereign and may grant or deny freedom to the people as it may please government.
In a republic, the primary function of government is to protect the rights endowed to people by their Creator and to defend the people from all enemies, foreign and domestic. In a social democracy, the function of government is to manage the people's behavior and activities to achieve whatever goals the government defines.
A republic recognizes that the less involvement government can have in the marketplace, the more prosperous that marketplace will be. In a social democracy, government manages the marketplace to achieve social objectives rather than prosperity.
Henry Lamb is the author of "The Rise of Global Governance," chairman of Sovereignty International and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21 Inc.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
What can journalists discuss?
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/11/anatomy-of-discussion-with-leftist.html#more
The Post has a background then a series of letters and replies about Ms. Wolf, then comment from....
http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radical-Conservatives-Beating-America/dp/0345521862
Rules For Radical Conservative
11/06/2010 10:39 PM
The Post has a background then a series of letters and replies about Ms. Wolf, then comment from....
Michael Servetus said...
1 Wait , you can't call someone hateful but you can call someone Austrian hateful. So Ms. Wolf is being accused of being hateful for accusing someone else of being hateful. But doesn't the left say the same exact thing about the right that they say we can't say about Islam.
You can't label or denigrate a religion but you can label and denigrate a political movement and belief of other people . We need to learn to complain better and change our mindset which is too accustomed to accepting leftists being the ones complaining and dragging people before courts and Muslims have learned from them.
It is time for Conservatives to make these thngs more of an issue by bringing lawsuits, bringing charges, I never hear of it.I mean not in the usual conservative polite way but by becoming nuisances. It seems that is the only thing that works. The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the most oil and Muslims and leftists get all the oil. That wasn't always the case, obviously and so that should give us hope, why? because if the leftists believed in what they believed in long and hard enough to overcome opposition and adversity, to the point of becoming the estabishement, that means the course is totally reversible and it all boils down to will and sacrfice. As I have said before, our side needs more troublemakers, more nuisances, more stubborn people, more closed mindedness, more brute passion, it is the only language of power among savages and that is what we are dealing with.
Why shouldn't it be. We should be bringing these journalists up on hate charges for hating, libelling and conspiring against citizens, for being discriminatory in a unjust way.
http://www.amazon.com/Rules-Radical-Conservatives-Beating-America/dp/0345521862
Rules For Radical Conservative
11/06/2010 10:39 PM
Friday, November 5, 2010
COEXIST
http://www.enochmagazine.com/articles/general/the-coexist-bumper-sticker#comment-8116
Just a variety of interesting comments, not only from Christian perspectives. Just before the comments I have added this image 6th October 2012.
added another pic 2015 May 29th.
did the yazidi kurd copt christian co exist or just dhimmis until a suitable time?
47.Elise on January 6th, 2010 at 6:30 pm:
As Christians, we were created for God’s glory and to love Him; and it’s our job as christians to go forth with the great commission and love others; with that I agree. Love is of God. You cannot know true love unless you know the ONE AND ONLY GOD: Jesus Christ/ the God of the Bible. So how can we say we love others as Christians when we have the antidote for life and for death and are willing to sit back and do nothing about it? How can we say we respect and love others while we sit back and watch people condemn themselves to hell because of their own doing and not try to warn them?
An athiest himself put it this way:
“If you believe one bit that thousands every day were falling into an eternal and unreacheable fate, you should be running the streets mad with rage at their blindness. That’s equivalent to standing on a street corner and watching every person that passes you walk blindly directly into the path of a bus and die, yet you stand idly by and do nothing. You’re just twiddling your thumbs, happy in the knowledge that one day that ‘walk’ signal will shine your way across the road. You’re just going to allow that to happen and not care about saving anyone but yourself? If you’re right then you’re uncaring, unemotional and purely selfish (expletive) that has no right to talk about subjects such as ‘love and caring.’”
Couldn’t have put it better myself….
Also, if there was more than one way to heaven then why on earth would Jesus (God Himself) have died on that cross for us?! Christianity is the only faith that asks you to give up SELF! Jesus asks us to take up our cross and follow Him daily! That means NOT living a selfish life: crazy concept! Christianity is NOT a religion (look up the definition of christianity and religion and find out for yourself). In religion it’s about how YOU can do it yourself and how YOU can reach heaven. Every other “religious belief” calls for you to have to work in order to obtain eternal salvation; Christianity asks for NOTHING but trust in Jesus. Religion is man trying to get to God or achieve “godhood,” Christianity is God coming down to man! Last time I checked no other “religious leader” did that for the people. Muhammad died, Buddha died, Jesus died, but only Jesus came back to life! The beauty of free will is that with this knowledge one still has the right to choose for himself. That’s just how much Jesus loved you, even though He knew people would deny Him (possibly you) He died anyway. I don’t think I could sacrifice my life for someone who hates me. Not to mention the Bible has NEVER been proven wrong! Thousands of thousands of people have tried; each one of them has failed miserably. Jesus DIED so that EVERYONE can go to be with Him for eternity. It’s not that hard of a concept people. You don’t have to do ANYTHING but believe, repent, and trust in Jesus! No strings attached that don’t benefit you; you have nothing to lose but everything to gain! Will life be perfect? Of course not! In fact it’ll be harder but you have an eternity of perfection to look forward to! “Jesus doesn’t get us around our troubles; He gets us through them.”
You cannot tell me you sincerely believe that you’re going to get to heaven and tell the Creator of the universe, the Alpha and Omega, God, that “hey, you tried your hardest!” You can NEVER obey every single command; it’s impossible. You sin without even realizing it; just read Benjamin Franklin’s account on attempting that. How sad that some people believe they can actually do it themselves. Please attempt to be perfect; let me know how that one goes….
48.Elise on January 6th, 2010 at 6:41 pm:
p.s. I think it’s ironic how everyone who is not a christian is so quick to say that “christians are close-minded and judgemental” when in reality it is the non-christians who are being close minded and judgemental. To some extent I do agree that Christianity in this age has unfortunately been watered down by lukewarms and mixed worldviews of this age, but in that same breath we are called to be hard headed but open minded. Meaning, be willing to listen to others beliefs in a respectful way but be hard headed in that you in fact do know ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Try to share that with others. People who aren’t christians aren’t going to read the Bible, they’re going to read you.
-------------------------------------------------------
50.Derek Elkins on January 16th, 2010 at 9:09 pm:
I believe we need to clearify terms when one claims that peace is the only way to God. What do you mean by peace? Christians believe in having peace with God, themselves, and others and a peace from god that passing all understanding. How would you define God? Though many religions have similarities, they have more differences. So not every one that says God, means the same thing. Also, how do you know God spoke to you?
The Bible teaches that people came to God through faith before Christ, which is the same way they are able to come to him today. See Hebrews chapter 11. Remember that before Jesus, the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, people brought a lamb that was a firgure that represented Jesus. Abel brought a lamb for himself. The families of Israel brought a lamb for their family (Exodus 12), and later they brought a lamb for the entire nation known as the day of Atonement. So the progression was from an individual, to the family, to the nation, and to the entire world. This is all done to forgive our sins so we can return to God and re-establish a broken relationship with Him.
True Christianity is a person; Jesus, and not a religion. It is basically having a personal relationship with Jesus. American does not equal Christian:)
I have friends from other religions, but i do not call them hypocrites. One can find hypocrites anywhere; work, school, politicians, and yes religious people.
I personally do not preach Christianity, but rather I preach Christ who loves us, forgives us, and save us. for example, see the bumper sticker “Not perfect, just forgiven”. And yes i do believe that followers of Jesus should practice what they preach.
I like the bumper sticker. I will be using it during a lesson on world views and religions in an up coming college and career class I lead. I believe we can coexist. We are taught to love one another and our enemies (a revolutionary teaching). The truth is that the whole world was once enemies with God, but he became human and coexisted and died for those of the world.
Awesome topic!
Derek
-------------------------------------------------
51.Bill on January 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 am:
Wonderful discussion! Yes, this bumpersticker has come to simply irritate me, but my take on it is completely different from what I’ve read. First, it’s nothing more than pure capitalism by its retailer Peacemonger (which I applaud loudly) so I don’t overread any great meaning into it. Just like Michael Moore
Just a variety of interesting comments, not only from Christian perspectives. Just before the comments I have added this image 6th October 2012.
added another pic 2015 May 29th.
did the yazidi kurd copt christian co exist or just dhimmis until a suitable time?
47.Elise on January 6th, 2010 at 6:30 pm:
As Christians, we were created for God’s glory and to love Him; and it’s our job as christians to go forth with the great commission and love others; with that I agree. Love is of God. You cannot know true love unless you know the ONE AND ONLY GOD: Jesus Christ/ the God of the Bible. So how can we say we love others as Christians when we have the antidote for life and for death and are willing to sit back and do nothing about it? How can we say we respect and love others while we sit back and watch people condemn themselves to hell because of their own doing and not try to warn them?
An athiest himself put it this way:
“If you believe one bit that thousands every day were falling into an eternal and unreacheable fate, you should be running the streets mad with rage at their blindness. That’s equivalent to standing on a street corner and watching every person that passes you walk blindly directly into the path of a bus and die, yet you stand idly by and do nothing. You’re just twiddling your thumbs, happy in the knowledge that one day that ‘walk’ signal will shine your way across the road. You’re just going to allow that to happen and not care about saving anyone but yourself? If you’re right then you’re uncaring, unemotional and purely selfish (expletive) that has no right to talk about subjects such as ‘love and caring.’”
Couldn’t have put it better myself….
Also, if there was more than one way to heaven then why on earth would Jesus (God Himself) have died on that cross for us?! Christianity is the only faith that asks you to give up SELF! Jesus asks us to take up our cross and follow Him daily! That means NOT living a selfish life: crazy concept! Christianity is NOT a religion (look up the definition of christianity and religion and find out for yourself). In religion it’s about how YOU can do it yourself and how YOU can reach heaven. Every other “religious belief” calls for you to have to work in order to obtain eternal salvation; Christianity asks for NOTHING but trust in Jesus. Religion is man trying to get to God or achieve “godhood,” Christianity is God coming down to man! Last time I checked no other “religious leader” did that for the people. Muhammad died, Buddha died, Jesus died, but only Jesus came back to life! The beauty of free will is that with this knowledge one still has the right to choose for himself. That’s just how much Jesus loved you, even though He knew people would deny Him (possibly you) He died anyway. I don’t think I could sacrifice my life for someone who hates me. Not to mention the Bible has NEVER been proven wrong! Thousands of thousands of people have tried; each one of them has failed miserably. Jesus DIED so that EVERYONE can go to be with Him for eternity. It’s not that hard of a concept people. You don’t have to do ANYTHING but believe, repent, and trust in Jesus! No strings attached that don’t benefit you; you have nothing to lose but everything to gain! Will life be perfect? Of course not! In fact it’ll be harder but you have an eternity of perfection to look forward to! “Jesus doesn’t get us around our troubles; He gets us through them.”
You cannot tell me you sincerely believe that you’re going to get to heaven and tell the Creator of the universe, the Alpha and Omega, God, that “hey, you tried your hardest!” You can NEVER obey every single command; it’s impossible. You sin without even realizing it; just read Benjamin Franklin’s account on attempting that. How sad that some people believe they can actually do it themselves. Please attempt to be perfect; let me know how that one goes….
48.Elise on January 6th, 2010 at 6:41 pm:
p.s. I think it’s ironic how everyone who is not a christian is so quick to say that “christians are close-minded and judgemental” when in reality it is the non-christians who are being close minded and judgemental. To some extent I do agree that Christianity in this age has unfortunately been watered down by lukewarms and mixed worldviews of this age, but in that same breath we are called to be hard headed but open minded. Meaning, be willing to listen to others beliefs in a respectful way but be hard headed in that you in fact do know ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Try to share that with others. People who aren’t christians aren’t going to read the Bible, they’re going to read you.
-------------------------------------------------------
50.Derek Elkins on January 16th, 2010 at 9:09 pm:
I believe we need to clearify terms when one claims that peace is the only way to God. What do you mean by peace? Christians believe in having peace with God, themselves, and others and a peace from god that passing all understanding. How would you define God? Though many religions have similarities, they have more differences. So not every one that says God, means the same thing. Also, how do you know God spoke to you?
The Bible teaches that people came to God through faith before Christ, which is the same way they are able to come to him today. See Hebrews chapter 11. Remember that before Jesus, the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world, people brought a lamb that was a firgure that represented Jesus. Abel brought a lamb for himself. The families of Israel brought a lamb for their family (Exodus 12), and later they brought a lamb for the entire nation known as the day of Atonement. So the progression was from an individual, to the family, to the nation, and to the entire world. This is all done to forgive our sins so we can return to God and re-establish a broken relationship with Him.
True Christianity is a person; Jesus, and not a religion. It is basically having a personal relationship with Jesus. American does not equal Christian:)
I have friends from other religions, but i do not call them hypocrites. One can find hypocrites anywhere; work, school, politicians, and yes religious people.
I personally do not preach Christianity, but rather I preach Christ who loves us, forgives us, and save us. for example, see the bumper sticker “Not perfect, just forgiven”. And yes i do believe that followers of Jesus should practice what they preach.
I like the bumper sticker. I will be using it during a lesson on world views and religions in an up coming college and career class I lead. I believe we can coexist. We are taught to love one another and our enemies (a revolutionary teaching). The truth is that the whole world was once enemies with God, but he became human and coexisted and died for those of the world.
Awesome topic!
Derek
-------------------------------------------------
51.Bill on January 22nd, 2010 at 10:54 am:
Wonderful discussion! Yes, this bumpersticker has come to simply irritate me, but my take on it is completely different from what I’ve read. First, it’s nothing more than pure capitalism by its retailer Peacemonger (which I applaud loudly) so I don’t overread any great meaning into it. Just like Michael Moore
Offensive Jihad
http://www.meforum.org/2767/offensive-jihad
Offensive Jihad
The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam
by Raymond Ibrahim
A recent MEMRI report titled "Arab Columnists: Stop Talking About Offensive Jihad," alludes to the ultimate problem between Islam and the non-Muslim world: offensive jihad, or jihad al-talab — the Islamic imperative to subjugate the world. The report opens by saying "One dominant theme during Ramadan in the Arab world is the discussion, in the media and in religious circles, of the commandment of jihad and the obligation therein to wage war against the infidels." It then focuses on two recent op-eds, written by Arab-Muslims, that discuss the need to suppress Muslim talk of offensive jihad.
One writer, Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the "wiser" supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims "must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns." In the meantime, according to these Muslims, "there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe." Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively "on the assumption that the world doesn't read, doesn't monitor… and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading."
Similarly, Abdallah Al-Naggar writes: "Today, the Muslims' circumstances are different [i.e., they are weak], and talk of this aspect [of jihad] requires a smart approach, one that stresses the aspect of self defense, instead of aggression and onslaught," since discussing offensive jihad "arouses the enmity of people"; thus, "there is a need for wisdom [i.e., kitman] in our impassioned discussions of war and battles."
These writers are insightful enough to understand that Islam's imperative for Muslims to wage offensive jihad is the one insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Best not to keep reminding the infidel world, then.
Consider: most of the things Islam gets criticized for — lack of democracy, male-female relations, draconian punishments, etc. —are intra-civilizational to Islam; that is, they affect Muslims alone. As such, it is for Muslims to decide on their utility; for it is the responsibility of every civilization to reform itself from the inside, not through outside "help" or coercion, the former mistrusted, the latter resented. Modern democracy in the West developed only after the people of the West wanted it bad enough to fight for it themselves, and only after centuries of bloody — but internal — conflicts. Feminism was not forcefully imported from some alien civilization but homegrown in the West. Pragmatically speaking, then, so long as sharia's mandates affect Muslims alone, non-Muslims have no legitimate grievances.
And this is the dividing line: what one civilization maintains as "right" and "normal" for itself is acceptable. However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia-style fascism to the West — that is objectively wrong.
Offensive Jihad
The One Incontrovertible Problem with Islam
by Raymond Ibrahim
A recent MEMRI report titled "Arab Columnists: Stop Talking About Offensive Jihad," alludes to the ultimate problem between Islam and the non-Muslim world: offensive jihad, or jihad al-talab — the Islamic imperative to subjugate the world. The report opens by saying "One dominant theme during Ramadan in the Arab world is the discussion, in the media and in religious circles, of the commandment of jihad and the obligation therein to wage war against the infidels." It then focuses on two recent op-eds, written by Arab-Muslims, that discuss the need to suppress Muslim talk of offensive jihad.
One writer, Khaled Al-Ghanami, states that the "wiser" supporters of offensive jihad believe that Muslims "must sit and wait until the era of our strength returns." In the meantime, according to these Muslims, "there is nothing shameful about taqiyya [deception] until the time is ripe." Al-Ghanami bemoans the fact that such Muslims operate naively "on the assumption that the world doesn't read, doesn't monitor… and is not paying attention to the calls for killing, tyranny, and aggression that we are spreading."
Similarly, Abdallah Al-Naggar writes: "Today, the Muslims' circumstances are different [i.e., they are weak], and talk of this aspect [of jihad] requires a smart approach, one that stresses the aspect of self defense, instead of aggression and onslaught," since discussing offensive jihad "arouses the enmity of people"; thus, "there is a need for wisdom [i.e., kitman] in our impassioned discussions of war and battles."
These writers are insightful enough to understand that Islam's imperative for Muslims to wage offensive jihad is the one insurmountable obstacle for peace between Muslims and non-Muslims. Best not to keep reminding the infidel world, then.
Consider: most of the things Islam gets criticized for — lack of democracy, male-female relations, draconian punishments, etc. —are intra-civilizational to Islam; that is, they affect Muslims alone. As such, it is for Muslims to decide on their utility; for it is the responsibility of every civilization to reform itself from the inside, not through outside "help" or coercion, the former mistrusted, the latter resented. Modern democracy in the West developed only after the people of the West wanted it bad enough to fight for it themselves, and only after centuries of bloody — but internal — conflicts. Feminism was not forcefully imported from some alien civilization but homegrown in the West. Pragmatically speaking, then, so long as sharia's mandates affect Muslims alone, non-Muslims have no legitimate grievances.
And this is the dividing line: what one civilization maintains as "right" and "normal" for itself is acceptable. However, when one civilization tries to apply, through force, those same principles onto other civilizations — whether the West trying to import liberalism to Islam, or Islam trying to spread sharia-style fascism to the West — that is objectively wrong.
Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat in NZ
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29389
Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record, UK Politicians See End for Doomsaying Warmists
Final Phase of Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat for Doomsayers
By John O'Sullivan Sunday, October 31, 2010
Climate science is complex and to many people hard to fathom, but you don’t need to be a scientist to sense fraud when key global temperature data is destroyed or withheld from public examination.
Forceful speeches dismantling the falsities of global warming junk science were delivered within the mother of all parliaments at a spectacularly successful 2010 Climate Fools Day Event in London (October 27). In the fore was the world’s leading long-range weather forecaster, Piers Corbyn, who was presented with a new science award and cash prize of $10,000. Corbyn had predicted the Moscow heat wave and Pakistan floods weeks in advance and he says human emissions of greenhouse gases play no part whatsoever in controlling weather or climate.
First Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record
But it wasn’t Corbyn’s outstanding science that won the day but rather a story of how astute application of the law had dealt Antipodean warmists a fatal blow. I recounted to an amazed audience how climate realists in New Zealand had hauled their errant government to court where the burden of proof is of the demanding legal standard. Therein a pro-green New Zealand Government had been humiliated into abandoning all pretenses to possessing a bona fide official climate record in the scandal now referred to as ‘Kiwigate.’
Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record, UK Politicians See End for Doomsaying Warmists
Final Phase of Global Warming War and Another Legal Defeat for Doomsayers
By John O'Sullivan Sunday, October 31, 2010
Climate science is complex and to many people hard to fathom, but you don’t need to be a scientist to sense fraud when key global temperature data is destroyed or withheld from public examination.
Forceful speeches dismantling the falsities of global warming junk science were delivered within the mother of all parliaments at a spectacularly successful 2010 Climate Fools Day Event in London (October 27). In the fore was the world’s leading long-range weather forecaster, Piers Corbyn, who was presented with a new science award and cash prize of $10,000. Corbyn had predicted the Moscow heat wave and Pakistan floods weeks in advance and he says human emissions of greenhouse gases play no part whatsoever in controlling weather or climate.
First Government Abandons Pretense of a Global Warming Record
But it wasn’t Corbyn’s outstanding science that won the day but rather a story of how astute application of the law had dealt Antipodean warmists a fatal blow. I recounted to an amazed audience how climate realists in New Zealand had hauled their errant government to court where the burden of proof is of the demanding legal standard. Therein a pro-green New Zealand Government had been humiliated into abandoning all pretenses to possessing a bona fide official climate record in the scandal now referred to as ‘Kiwigate.’
When Bias Has Its Own Media
That is just like in my country for the previous government for 9 years and probably more, and dang it still continues
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29413
guilty of journalistic malpractice
When Bias Has Its Own Media
By Daniel Greenfield Monday, November 1, 2010
Bias is a normal part of human thought. It is not a good thing, but it exists because we are only human. Our viewpoints influence how we see things. And that in turn influences how we describe them. But just because bias is normal, does not mean that it is acceptable.
A doctor may like one patient better than another. That does not mean that he has the right to provide an inferior level of medical care to one patient. He may not be able to help being nicer to one patient than the other, but he may not actively mistreat a less favored patient. That is medical malpractice. Similarly a reporter who does not simply favor liberal politicians, but actively biases stories against their opponents is guilty of journalistic malpractice. He can no longer claim to be providing a public service, only serving as the mouthpiece for his ideology of choice.
Bias always exists, but journalistic bias has a tipping point at which instead of a free press, we have a propaganda press. When does that tipping point occur? Henry David Thoreau wrote that there is a certain amount of injustice in government, just as there is a certain amount of friction in operating a machine. But when “friction has its own machine”, then the injustice is no longer an unfortunate byproduct, it is now the purpose of the machine. That is the case with tyrannical regimes who exist to oppress people, rather than the oppression being an unfortunate by product of the exercise of authority, as was formerly the case in the United States.
When it comes to the media, there is also a point at which “friction has its own machine”. That happens when bias is no longer just injected into the reporting of a story, but when bias is the reason for the existence of a story.
It’s easy to spot the difference between the two.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/29413
guilty of journalistic malpractice
When Bias Has Its Own Media
By Daniel Greenfield Monday, November 1, 2010
Bias is a normal part of human thought. It is not a good thing, but it exists because we are only human. Our viewpoints influence how we see things. And that in turn influences how we describe them. But just because bias is normal, does not mean that it is acceptable.
A doctor may like one patient better than another. That does not mean that he has the right to provide an inferior level of medical care to one patient. He may not be able to help being nicer to one patient than the other, but he may not actively mistreat a less favored patient. That is medical malpractice. Similarly a reporter who does not simply favor liberal politicians, but actively biases stories against their opponents is guilty of journalistic malpractice. He can no longer claim to be providing a public service, only serving as the mouthpiece for his ideology of choice.
Bias always exists, but journalistic bias has a tipping point at which instead of a free press, we have a propaganda press. When does that tipping point occur? Henry David Thoreau wrote that there is a certain amount of injustice in government, just as there is a certain amount of friction in operating a machine. But when “friction has its own machine”, then the injustice is no longer an unfortunate byproduct, it is now the purpose of the machine. That is the case with tyrannical regimes who exist to oppress people, rather than the oppression being an unfortunate by product of the exercise of authority, as was formerly the case in the United States.
When it comes to the media, there is also a point at which “friction has its own machine”. That happens when bias is no longer just injected into the reporting of a story, but when bias is the reason for the existence of a story.
It’s easy to spot the difference between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
