The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

daithifleming wrote: »

For the second time. What is guideline 1?

OK ....What is your opinion of 'Guideline 1' (Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature). ?

...and HOW will it be achieved, in your opinion?

pH

J C wrote: »

In a word NO......my empathy with a common Humanity would remain.

That's wonderful to hear, and to be honest I never doubted you, however those questions were directed at wolfsbane who appears to have said that the only thing preventing him from mass murder of his fellow man is the fact that they are somehow "God's creation".

I'd still like to hear wolfbane's answers.

What is your opinion of 'Guideline 1' (Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature). ?

...and HOW will it be achieved, in your opinion?

My opinion is I don't agree with it.

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

OK ....What is your opinion of 'Guideline 1' (Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature). ?

...and HOW will it be achieved, in your opinion?

I don't see the point to it, and im against any idea of culling.

J C

Originally Posted by J C
What is your opinion of 'Guideline 1' (Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature). ?

...and HOW will it be achieved, in your opinion?

pH wrote: »

My opinion is I don't agree with it.

daithifleming wrote: »

I don't see the point to it, and im against any idea of culling.

OK......so would you like to know WHO is proposing this idea.....

.....and HOW it is planned to be achieved?


.....and WHY do you think our 'ever vigiliant' Media HASN'T found out ....and told us the answers to these questions???

Scofflaw

J C wrote: »

Both my belief that they were specially Created by God.....and my empathy with their common Humanity would be reasons for my objection.

.....obviously, the perpretrators DIDN'T think that the people they were murdering were 'anything special'......and they had no empathy with their common Humanity......or they WOULDN'T do it......

......and their use of language in relation to their victims proves that they didn't consider them to be 'anything special'.....words like 'useless eaters' and 'life unworthy of life' and 'genetic hygiene'......spring to mind.

Rather more importantly, they subscribed to a theory that one "race" of humanity, despite being evolutionarily and genetically inseparable from any others, were marked both by their religion and their ancestry as inferior, and not fully human.

Similarly, they believed in narrowing the genetic basis of humanity, which, in evolutionary terms, is a strategy for disaster.

J C wrote: »

In a word NO......my empathy with a common Humanity would remain.

Good job humanity evolved empathy, eh? Doesn't work all the time, of course, particularly if you can be persuaded that an out-group are deicides and baby-killers...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Ekancone

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
What is your opinion of 'Guideline 1' (Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature). ?

...and HOW will it be achieved, in your opinion?





OK......so would you like to know WHO is proposing this idea.....

.....and HOW it is planned to be achieved?


.....and WHY do you think our 'ever vigiliant' Media HASN'T found out ....and told us the answers to these questions???

Before you do, answer me this. Did this person suggest that 500,000,000 would be the optimal population to sustain the earth, or did this person actually say that we should kill 5.5bn people?

pH

J C wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
What is your opinion of 'Guideline 1' (Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature). ?

...and HOW will it be achieved, in your opinion?

OK......so would you like to know WHO is proposing this idea.....
.....and HOW it is planned to be achieved?
.....and WHY do you think our 'ever vigiliant' Media HASN'T found out ....and told us the answers to these questions???

Well I have a vague interest in who my be proposing such a thing, but it wouldn't be high on my agenda of things to find out. Just because someone has enough cash to get something carved in stone doesn't mean much to me.

Off the top of my head the only mysterious entity that I can think of with a history of giving rules to us humans carved on stone tablets is God, so perhaps the person who put them there is a latter day Moses? Is that what you're getting at?

Scofflaw

pH wrote: »

Well I have a vague interest in who my be proposing such a thing, but it wouldn't be high on my agenda of things to find out. Just because someone has enough cash to get something carved in stone doesn't mean much to me.

Off the top of my head the only mysterious entity that I can think of with a history of giving rules to us humans carved on stone tablets is God, so perhaps the person who put them there is a latter day Moses? Is that what you're getting at?

It may be why JC takes it seriously!

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rather more importantly, they subscribed to a theory that one "race" of humanity, despite being evolutionarily and genetically inseparable from any others, were marked both by their religion and their ancestry as inferior, and not fully human.

.....that wouldn't explain their targetting of Christians, Gypsies, Homosexuals and people with special needs.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Similarly, they believed in narrowing the genetic basis of humanity, which, in evolutionary terms, is a strategy for disaster.

....these guys weren't actually basing their ideas on science.....they were abusing science (and genetics in particular) as a pretext for their prejudices.
One ridiculous example of such 'pseudo-science' that I came across was a Eugenecist who refused to talk to her daughter after she married a man with Myopia.....such was her disapproval of the marriage for 'genetic reasons'!!!

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good job humanity evolved empathy, eh? Doesn't work all the time, of course, particularly if you can be persuaded that an out-group are deicides and baby-killers...

.....that wouldn't explain why they murdered Christians, Gypsies, Homosexuals and people with special needs.,


......anyway it is great to have you back Scofflaw.......so WHAT caused you to take fright last night?

......and could I ask you again ......what is your opinion of 'Guideline 1' (Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature). ?

.....and would you like to know WHO is proposing this idea.....
.....and HOW it is planned to be achieved?
.....and WHY do you think our 'ever vigiliant' Media HASN'T found out ....and told us the answers to these questions???

wolfsbane

Does anyone have a copy of Bertrand Russell's The Impact of Science on Society and The Scientific Outlook? I would like to check the quotes on this site:

http://groups.google.com/group/teachAndLearnOnline/browse_thread/thread/aded81878e829b96

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Does anyone have a copy of Bertrand Russell's The Impact of Science on Society and The Scientific Outlook? I would like to check the quotes on this site:

http://groups.google.com/group/teachAndLearnOnline/browse_thread/thread/aded81878e829b96

I haven't read it in years, but all of those quotes look right. Hilarious stuff!

cordially,
Scofflaw

J C

pH wrote: »

Well I have a vague interest in who my be proposing such a thing, but it wouldn't be high on my agenda of things to find out. Just because someone has enough cash to get something carved in stone doesn't mean much to me.

Off the top of my head the only mysterious entity that I can think of with a history of giving rules to us humans carved on stone tablets is God, so perhaps the person who put them there is a latter day Moses? Is that what you're getting at?

.....a 'latter day Moses' .....eh.....let me see .....are you saying that you think that it is an Orthodox Semitic Jew who is responsible?

........nay.......don't think so myself!!!!

anyway, would you like to know how it is proposed to be achieved?

.....and WHY do you think our 'ever vigiliant' Media HASN'T found out ....and told us the answers to these questions???

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Does anyone have a copy of Bertrand Russell's The Impact of Science on Society and The Scientific Outlook? I would like to check the quotes on this site:

http://groups.google.com/group/teachAndLearnOnline/browse_thread/thread/aded81878e829b96

Oh please. What a larf.

wolfsbane

pH wrote: »

That's wonderful to hear, and to be honest I never doubted you, however those questions were directed at wolfsbane who appears to have said that the only thing preventing him from mass murder of his fellow man is the fact that they are somehow "God's creation".

I'd still like to hear wolfbane's answers.



My opinion is I don't agree with it.

Sorry you seemed to have missed my point: the atheist has no LOGICAL reason to reject such a cull. He may have emotional ones, I'm happy to say. In other words, most atheists tend to have some morality in common with Christians, even though it is not based on reason.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sorry you seemed to have missed my point: the atheist has no LOGICAL reason to reject such a cull. He may have emotional ones, I'm happy to say. In other words, most atheists tend to have some morality in common with Christians, even though it is not based on reason.

What could it possibly be based on then?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw wrote: »

I haven't read it in years, but all of those quotes look right. Hilarious stuff!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hmm, Yes, if I didn't laugh I'd have to cry. A. Huxley provided even more on the same vein:
http://www.libertythink.com/Huxleytranscript.txt

Glad we're speaking again, my friend.:)

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

What could it possibly be based on then?

Conscience.

Ekancone

wolfsbane wrote: »

Conscience.

Where would an atheist get a thing like that?

J C

Scofflaw wrote: »

It may be why JC takes it seriously!

cordially,
Scofflaw

IF something is literally written in stone......I think you should take it seriously......
.........and if the people who erected it are seriously powerful.....then you should take it even more seriously!!!:D

........indeed it seemed to 'spook' YOU last night ......and the other 'Evolutionists' on the thread took a full 12 hours to 'pull themselves together'......after you 'spooked' them!!!:eek::)

wolfsbane

daithifleming wrote: »

Where would an atheist get a thing like that?

God put it there when He made him in the womb.

pH

J C wrote: »

.....a 'latter day Moses' .....eh.....let me see .....are you saying that you think that it is an Orthodox Semitic Jew who is responsible?

........nay.......don't think so myself!!!!

Clearly no. By 'latter day Moses' I mean a person given stone tablets by God and told to inform the rest of us of his plans and rules.

anyway, would you like to know how it is proposed to be achieved?

Not really.

.....and WHY do you think our 'ever vigiliant' Media HASN'T found out ....and told us the answers to these questions???

Google finds 17,300 references to these guidestones, some of them are media sites. When you say 'our' media do you specifically mean the Irish media? Does the Irish media have a duty to investigate and report everything carved into a rock anywhere in the world.

I just scratched "The number of seashells in the world should be limited to 726,394" on a pebble, when should I expect RTE's call? If I chiselled it on a large rock, who knows I might get Charlie Bird himself.

Come on J C, you've seen the internet, there are thousands of wacky proposals all over it, seriously this whole carved in stone seems to be a hot button for you! - why should this proposal be taken seriously?

Nerin

Ive some laws to live by written down JC, can i be moses now?

J C

pH wrote: »

Clearly no. By 'latter day Moses' I mean a person given stone tablets by God and told to inform the rest of us of his plans and rules.

God DIDN'T do this........but you are correct that it was spiritually inspired!!!

pH wrote: »

Google finds 17,300 references to these guidestones, some of them are media sites. When you say 'our' media do you specifically mean the Irish media? Does the Irish media have a duty to investigate and report everything carved into a rock anywhere in the world.

Google finds nearly 23 MILLION references to Climate Change.....but our the media ALSO exhaustively explains the concept to us......
.....and, as I have already said our media keep us right up to date with such 'serious matters' as the colour and extent of some celebrities knickers....always assuming that there is enough clothing material present in the knickers........for them to be visible in the first place........and the LOCATION of the said celebrity (and her knickers) ......could be ANYWHERE on Earth!!!!

............but STRANGELY enough I have NEVER seen even ONE mention of these Guidestones in our media.

pH wrote: »

I just scratched "The number of seashells in the world should be limited to 726,394" on a pebble, when should I expect RTE's call? If I chiselled it on a large rock, who knows I might get Charlie Bird himself.

Come on J C, you've seen the internet, there are thousands of wacky proposals all over it, seriously this whole carved in stone seems to be a hot button for you! - why should this proposal be taken seriously?

.....but this IS a serious proposal ......with Global implications!!

.......and whatever about the Guidestones themselves......of far more importance is HOW this proposal is planned to be implemented......and WHO is proposing it .....in the first place.:D

.....the stones also 'freaked out' Scofflaw last night......and he is studiously avoiding answering ANY substantive questions about them here tonight!!!!

J C

nerin wrote: »

Ive some laws to live by written down JC, can i be moses now?

...not unless you are a 3,000 years old Orthodox Semitic Jew .......with the ability to 'part' the Irish Sea!!!!:D:)

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.....but this IS a serious proposal ......with Global implications!!

.......and whatever about the Guidestones themselves......of far more importance is HOW this proposal is planned to be implemented......and WHO is proposing it .....in the first place.:D

.....the stones also 'freaked out' Scofflaw last night......and he is still avoiding answering ANY questions about them tonight!!!!

J C, the facts are that:

1. These guidelines are almost 30 years old and yet nothing has happened in the meantime that would suggest any of them are being achieved or even worked on by the sinister 'Guidestone People.' They could be dead by now.
2. The 'culling' of the human race, if that's their agenda, would require the MASS COOPERATION of millions, if not billions of people - no evidence of that.
3. Their wacky environmentalism theme suggests they were a Greenpeace-like group. These groups do not have much global influence, political or otherwise.
4. The stones were built in the back end of nowhere - why should the media give a hoot?
5. Whoever built it could easily be written off as a crank.

Importantly, it has no relevance to creationism or evolution.

wolfsbane wrote:

Sorry you seemed to have missed my point: the atheist has no LOGICAL reason to reject such a cull. He may have emotional ones, I'm happy to say. In other words, most atheists tend to have some morality in common with Christians, even though it is not based on reason.

Emotions are most illogical, captain. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to recharge my robotic energy cells.

Noli irritare leones

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

J C, the facts are that:

1. These guidelines are almost 30 years old and yet nothing has happened in the meantime that would suggest any of them are being achieved or even worked on by the sinister 'Guidestone People.' They could be dead by now.
2. The 'culling' of the human race, if that's their agenda, would require the MASS COOPERATION of millions, if not billions of people - no evidence of that.
3. Their wacky environmentalism theme suggests they were a Greenpeace-like group. These groups do not have much global influence, political or otherwise.
4. The stones were built in the back end of nowhere - why should the media give a hoot?
5. Whoever built it could easily be written off as a crank.

Few people know WHO these people are .......or WHAT they intend to do .......and few have bothered to find out!!!!

.....and this 90% reduction figure keeps 'popping up' in all sorts of places!!!!

.....Scofflaw seems to know some of the answers......but he has adopted a vow of silence!!

2Scoops wrote: »

Importantly, it has no relevance to creationism or evolution.

It might have significant implications for Creationists and Evolutionists themselves.....though!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

Few people know WHO these people are .......or WHAT they intend to do .......and few have bothered to find out!!!!

BECAUSE THEY ARE MOST LIKELY CRANKS.

J C wrote: »

It might have significant implications for Creationists and Evolutionists themselves.....though!!!:D

So, we're agreed: no relevance to creationism or evolution.

J C

2Scoops wrote: »

BECAUSE THEY ARE MOST LIKELY CRANKS.

.......right....everyone back to sleep again........they are only cranks.......cranks with big 'Earth-shaking' ideas!!!:eek:

.....cranks that appear to have the desire......and possibly the ability to wipe out most of Mankind......

...thanks for 'sharing' that idea with us!!!:D


Originally Posted by J C
It might have significant implications for Creationists and Evolutionists themselves.....though!!!

2Scoops wrote: »

So, we're agreed: no relevance to creationism or evolution.

................ask Scofflaw!!!:D

2Scoops

J C wrote: »

.......right....everyone back to sleep again........they are only cranks.......cranks with big 'Earth-shaking' ideas!!!:eek:

.....cranks that appear to have the desire......and possibly the ability to wipe out most of Mankind......

Where does it appear that they have the ability to wipe out most of mankind? Because they built a monument in the Georgia backwaters in 1979-80? Perhaps you know more than you're telling...Worshipful Brother?

Mods, may I humbly suggest that a new thread is started to deal with the 'Guidestone' non-issue - it's irrelevant to this thread and just a diversion from the real debate. I believe the creation of a new thread will be an effective compromise, allowing the issue to be discussed further by those who are interested.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hmm, Yes, if I didn't laugh I'd have to cry. A. Huxley provided even more on the same vein:
http://www.libertythink.com/Huxleytranscript.txt

Glad we're speaking again, my friend.:)

Ah, it doesn't take me long to calm down, fortunately! Yes, there was a lot of that kind of social-control stuff along with the silver-robe-and-winged-sandals stuff. Turns out it doesn't actually work that way - but this was a period when Einstein was convinced socialism was the only sensible answer.

cordially,
Scofflaw