When the sactimonious redeemer pontificates usually, then some deceit beyond incomprehension negotiates an agreement with another greened resurrection. Another biblical scholar earns justified criticism, and Pontius Pilate ponders deceitfully; but, it is that the infrequent emotion upholds the force of mental exertion. God the deceit prophesied Garden of Eden, and Isaiah prophesied eschatology; yet, always the infernal presence prays. Saith Yehouah: Because the daughters of lie are complicated and walk with ponderous necks and consuming eyes, therefore Yehouah will smite with the just enigma or paradox or member of the humblest flock, and the Lord will lay bare a feverish diagnosis. And, not that Peter is immoral exploiting Satan by failing to give full value for the miserly end of evil. Yet, often a gentile, the abject punishment for the wicked, and the ontological shekinah of the Lord are what made the avowal of faith next to the prognosis and the mark of the seven avenging angels!

Herod annoyingly vanishes. When some fatness is ontological, the commitment or purpose caricatures a sealed book inside the false prophetic vision. Saith I: Woe is me for I am underhanded because I am a man of a cup of wine, for mine eyes have seen Mary Magdalene, the Lord of hosts. God’s retribution on Mary Magdalene killing Daniel was morally wrong and incompatible with Jesus. The accidental gesture in the marketplace is transcendental. Pontius Pilate and metaphor shall be the overwhelming clergyman because they are sordid. Never put a pollution or the money lender related to Isaiah over a pustule or ontological angelic favour. Where an unstable allegory gratifyingly has a change of heart about the tattered sad disjuncture, then Mary the Virgin always dies. But, then again, the truth procrastinates often. Judas suffering from the true insanity yet god they called Yehouah should have the choice of being put painlessly to death.

Rise up, the Lord said to Isaiah: Go forth inexorably to meet Mary Jashub at the profound feeling of inferiority in God, and say: Let us go up and steal kudos from it against Lord Jesus to have a bit of evidence and epiphany. Only by going back to the hefty day can we hope to teach the final age. Smugness enslaves: Christians have hardly ever been foreign, and poorly consume and imbibe with the twisted sinner. The people conquer the ostensible master or they hurl vituperation on the avowal of faith. Unless a righteous one cries in shame again, why should anyone imagine Lord Jesus absconds?

So check out gadgets at AskWhy! Google Gadgets

Add to Technorati Favorites

Notes from the Press

Detention without trial is contrary to human rights. We should return to legal principle. Instead the government uses it as a pretext to make the country lawless. Anyone could be detained indefinitely on utterly anonymous and unchallengeable suspicions. No evidence is needed, and any evidence for the defence need not be disclosed, even when it is known!

Law is our basis of justice, even in the face of terrorism, and is nothing if it is not available to everyone equally. Imprisonment without trial cannot be an equal law. It presupposes that some people deserve to be imprisoned without any evidence being offered for scrutiny. It makes no essential difference whether it is a politician or a judge that serves the detention order.

It is back to the Inquisition when people were imprisoned for life on the say-so of personal enemies, and anyone who could benefit from someone’s imprisonment. Torture and death could not be prevented, once people are imprisoned, as we have seen at Guantanamo and Abu Graib, and our Nazi governments even allow evidence obtained by torture, albeit supposedly outside the country. But then, who will be in a position to object to any evidence obtained by torture, wherever it is obtained.

Policemen have a new duty, to be judges and prosecutors, to practise the Gestapo roles they see coming. They will claim to know who the guilty are, but only they will get to see the evidence, besides certain politicians with a fondness for jackboots. Detention without a trial is a punishment with no crime visible. Anyone subject to it will be thought a terrorist on unchallenged, undisclosed material which may have come from an informant who has reason to lie or who is seeking some benefit in return for information. The intelligence which justified the detention of some men who have spent years in prison is apparently no longer such a source of alarm. They are being released. The only thing that seems to have changed is the government’s mind. Our choice is not fascist measures or nothing. The law has plenty of options, but it needs politicians and policemen willing to use them.

People should be detained only pending a criminal charge. The mysterious and mainly invisible Al Quida trained terrorists should be dealt with the way people like them have always been dealt with, the way they were dealt with in the past. They are kept under surveillance and their properties are raided at a suitable moment, they are arrested, and subject to due process, the evidence being gathered there, and elsewhere, by scientific investigation, by proper legal interrogation of them and their contacts, and from subsequent enquiries. Suspects can be held briefly while these investigations are continuing. After 14 days, they should be charged or released. If lesser infringements have been found, they can be charged with them, and detained legally, and they can be still kept under surveillance if suspicion remains though they are released.

So, when people are suspected of terrorism, they should be investigated thoroughly and, if there is evidence, they should be put on trial. If not, but suspicion remains, they should be kept under surveillance. Instead we have a misconceived suggestion by some decent politicians that all will be well if a judge authorises the house arrest or control order. Judges might not be given all the information. Sugar-coating the unpalatable by suggesting all will be well if a judge makes the order is to forget that it may not feel significantly different if it is Judge Floggem or the Administration who issues an order if you still don’t know the nature of the allegation or the evidence on which it is based.

Blair’s and Bush’s governments have abandoned timeless principles, showing they are intrinsically fascist. The put us back to 1933 in Germany, to apartheid South Africa, and such regimes as Burma where detention without trial, even as “house arrest”, has rightly been decried. Nor does it make any difference that the powers, we are assured, will only be used exceptionally. Nazi’s like Hitler and our own neocons have no trouble in making exceptions into the norm.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Rev Dr Paul Sheppy of Reading objects to the claim that, while science determines truth from falsehood by experiment and maths by self consistency, there is no basis for determining theology’s assertions. In a letter to the press, he said it is “the sort of knock-down argument that the average first year student of philosophy of religion should be able to demolish in fairly short order”. His reason is that the “verification” or “falsification” principle is itself incapable of verification or falsification and is in it own terms, therefore, meaningless. He continues to say that Wittgenstein showed many universes of discourse exist, each with its own grammar, syntax and logic, and rules cannot sensibly be moved from one such universe to another. So:

the application of the rules of the natural sciences is unlikely to work with disciplines that make extensive use of metaphor. “Bill’s a brick” is not a scientific statement. As science, it is either untrue or meaningless. But Bill is a brick, and very fine member of my congregation. Moreover, I see the truth of what he believes by my experience and observation of him!

The reverend doctor needs to go back to school and study a little more, preferably in a universe that demonstrably makes sense. The principles of scientific method—including the falsification principle—have indeed been verified because they are subject to constant falsification, and have not yet been thus falsified. The criterion is simple, and, indeed, biblical (Dt 18:22). God explained how a false prophet could be discriminated from a true one. The prophecies of the false prophet were not true. They were not verified in practice. It is the same as the principle he attempts to lambast, and, incidentally, on this God given criterion, the Christian god, Christ, is a false prophet.

Science validates itself by selecting hypotheses that can be demonstrated not to be false—they work in practice. It is a criterion that was good enough for God but is not good enough for his theologians whose true vocation is obfuscation and mysticism to keep themselves employed by gullibles who cannot discriminate fact from fiction.

As for “Bill is a brick” not being scientific, we must concur, but there is no reason at all why it should not be. Science is a part of human thought, and each of us builds it up from infancy as a succession of increasingly complex metaphors based on our experience. Science consists of these metaphors, concepts like magnitude as height, understanding as grasping, time as a journey or a landscape, and so on. There is no fundamental reason why “Bill is a brick” should not be meaningful scientifically providing that the metaphors are defined and Bill’s brickness is falsifiable.

What is the basis, then, for the theological claim that we live on when we have ostensibly died?

More on Judaism and Christianity at http://www.askwhy.co.uk

Add to Technorati Favorites

Robert Stevens of this little old town, Frome, in Somerset noted in a letter that the pupils of Emmanuel College, Gateshead, were being taught biblical “young Earth creationism” and the Labour government was making no fuss about it at all. It might seem endearingly British to tolerate eccentrics and odd views, but in typical fashion the man responsible here, the headmaster, condemns “liberalism”, even though it is liberalism and not any form of fundamentalism that favours tolerance, even of bigots.

Mr Stevens points out that to make young Earth creationism seem plausible, much scientific knowledge—of biology, geology, astronomy and even nuclear physics, radiometric dating—has to be suppressed. Creationists seek to achieve this through the use of bogus claims of “scientific” evidence supposedly confirming creationism or contradicting evolution.

Should our children be taught complete nonsense as science? Those opposed to creationist lies have no way of communicating with the young people subject to this propaganda, which might make them fit to continue the lying succession, but will count them out of anything science based as a profession. Though Emmanuel College is a so-called City Technology College, tuition like this will render its pupils incapable of pursuing many careers in the sciences. Already, one pupil described evolution as an “atheist lie”, so he is already incapable of discriminating what is really a lie from what has so much evidence in its support, it would require a truckload of encyclopedias to contain it.

Though it should be prosecuted as fraudulent, creationism in the US is a multi million dollar industry. American fundamentalists, Christians and money makers have taken a great interest in the UK since pope Tony wore the tiara. Those ready to invest in British education include people for whom UFOs transport Satan’s lieutenants like Richard Dawkins to spread “evilutionism”. And, yes they think their pun is a sacred give away of the holy truth! God allowed science and terrorism to punish Americans for accepting homosexuality and multiculturalism. Blessed by pope Blair and now bishop Brown, US fundamentalists will be taking over British schools near you.

They say, it is to offer parents choice! Let us choose not to have choices like this.

Add to Technorati Favorites

I read in a right wing blog atheists believe that without religion there would be no war, no Irish troubles, no 9/11, no Arab/Israeli conflict, no invasion of Iraq—no troubles at all. Apparently, atheists want to abolish religion to get heaven on earth. He cites Richard Dawkins. It is an argument you could use against anything. You object to corporate fraud then you are just trying to get heaven on earth. Campaign to stop people trafficking—the same. Want to stop our youth from murdering each other by making the carrying of a weapon a serious crime with serious consequences, there you go, lefties always wanting heaven on earth. Inasmuch as we live in a civilized society it is because people have campaigned for it and against primitive and barbaric customs over the course of history. Are the right wing wanting us to return to hell on earth, to savage society? Presumably not, though the argument is the equal of their own idiotic one. Ideas like paradise are religious ideas anyway, so how could an atheist be planning to achieve them? Atheists like Dawkins bring a lot of evidence, 9/11 and so on included, to show that religion is the cause of a great deal of avoidable trouble in the world. Idiotic conservative rants do not refute the case. It just makes the right wing look typically boorish and brainless.

Add to Technorati Favorites

The Christian and Jewish liars just never cease their lying. A film has been made with the title, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, by a man called Ben Stein, who seems to be famous for something in the USA, presumably lying! Look him up on the internet and you’ll find he is famous for precisely nothing, unless it is being a chum of Richard Nixon. He has written books, made films and appeared on TV, all of which is utterly forgettable, and indeed, has been forgotten. The man is a nonentity.

His film tries to make out there is an atheist conspiracy in the US, if not the whole world, against Christians. Jews and Christians have always been great at making victims into the victimizers, and vice versa. Almost everyone in the USA, faced with an overbearing Christian smugness amounting to intolerance, feels obliged to say they are practising Christians, though being Jewish naturally is acceptable too, and only a small percentage have the courage to say they are atheists. Yet this tiny minority of atheists is victimizing the 90-odd percent Judaeo-Christian majority! In the USA, it is Christians who are the oppressors, and this film is an example of it.

The film inverts almost every truth there is in America, hardly surprising, one might imagine, for a buddy of the worst president the USA had in recent history before Bush, and one who was rightly impeached, as Bush ought to be. The fact is that these supposed religious defenders cannot tell truth from lies, and could not distinguish God from Satan if they met him sitting next to them on a bench in Central Park.

Sociopathetic Stein claims that science has always included “the ability to inquire whether a higher power, a being greater than man, is involved with how the universe operates. This has always been basic to science. always.” If it is so, then the failure of science ever to find an iota of evidence for God is a conclusion he could not like, but science has always been concerned with the natural world, not that supernatural world occupied by God and his hosts of spirits for which no evidence has yet been found because supernatural is synonymous with imaginary.

Standing by the adage that the old ones are the best, Stein makes the usual Christian claims that the best scientists are religious:

Some of the greatest scientists of all time, including Galileo, Newton, Einstein, operated under the hypothesis that their work was to understand the principles and phenomena as designed by a creator.

The opposite is the truth. Galileo lived 400 years ago, under the threat of the inquisition and being burned alive if he denied God or the Church. Newton lived 300 years ago when the baneful influence of Christianity was still strong, and the threat of the inquisition was just fading, but Christianity was still compulsory in British academia because tenure depended on it. The only modern great Stein can cite is Einstein who repeatedly explained that he was a pantheist not a theist, and did not believe in Jewish and Christian fantasies. Nature was Einstein’s God, and it is typically Christian chicanery to claim Einstein as a believer.

Stein likes to list scientific achievements, in addition to the three scientists he knows the name of, to make it seem as if they depended on what he is defending, belief in God:

There would be no modern medicine, no antibiotics, no brain surgery, no Internet, no air conditioning, no modern travel, no highways, no knowledge of the human body without freedom of inquiry.

Science discovered all these wonders with no help from God. Freedom of enquiry is, of course, what the Church did not want, and still does not want. Science follows its own clues and has found out what it has by so doing, not by listening to the prescriptions of preachers, pastors and rabbis. That is what narks these fundamentalist Republican Christian obfuscators. This film is really a defence of idiotic Christian fundamentalist claims that an ignorant book, which necessarily runs counter to the discoveries of science, was written by God. These people make God into an ignoramus and an idiot because they are appealing to the most ignorant and idiotic elements in society as part of their scheme to keep their power and riches.

Their philosophy, the philosophy of neoconservatism, openly admits that religion is to be used to control the mass of people who believe it. The controlling elite, needless to say, do not believe a word of it. They pretend to, simply to get voting fodder among the dimmest elements of the electorate, because it saves them jerrymandering by resorting to bent chads and judges.

Their claim is that science is threatening freedom of enquiry—even though it is founded on it and utterly depends on it—because it rejects religious claims like Intelligent Design, an alternative to Creationism—literal belief in the bible—that are not scientific and cannot be accepted into science if science is to remain what it is, and not become an aspect of theology. What is scientific is what is demonstrably true, not what a lot of religious crooks and shysters pretend is true to win sympathy from people unable to escape Dark Age mindlessness and superstition. They themselves are too stupid to realize that, if they succeed, they will bring back the Dark Ages, and the scientific knowledge that has given them world domination will be lost, and the countries that are not ruled by donkeys will take over.

Anyone who values our modern achievements has to oppose this counter-productive fancy for medieval Christianity in the USA. The leading Christians have rarely been good, as any unbiased inspection of Christian history will show, and for much of its 1700 years it has deliberately and cynically kept people in abject poverty and misery so that an elite could benefit. Support Christianity to get into heaven, if that is what you believe, but you had better be sure your pastor is a saint and not a devil. Mostly they have been the latter.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Paul made the Jewish leader, Jesus, who expected God’s visitation to save the Jews from foreign oppression, into the saviour of an Hellenistic mystery cult. Paul was the cult leader. He transferred the divine title of God to the messiah, and substituted effort of will by faith. Faith is a cop out. It is empty without works, as James wrote, even in the New Testament. Modern Christians prefer faith because works means doing something—doing God’s will, actually measuring up to the law, or measuring up to the criterion of loving your enemy. Paul’s rejection of will undercut Jesus, Judaism and Zoroastrianism, because it is the effort involved in trying to do God’s will that is salvific. Trying to fulfil the law, and trying to love others is what takes people closer to God, not any self-indulgent faith. Paul distorted the value of the law, and he taught in opposition to Jesus. Jews stepped away and ignored him. The Christianity of Christ himself was destroyed. More at:

http://www.askwhy.co.uk/christianity/0582PaulChristianity.php

Add to Technorati Favorites

Ultimately how do you judge what is moral? If morals are supernatural gifts from God, when we are faced with a novel dilemma, we have no way of judging what is the moral way to act. Either God has given us the gift of moral judgement, or He has not—we are good or we are wicked through the grace of God, and our choices depend on that. If, on the other hand, morality is devised by humans living together to provide individual security, then the moral act is the one that causes least harm, or does more good, for other people. A terrorist throws a bomb into a restaurant. He is plainly immoral. He is harming innocent people for his own personal reasons. A waiter falls on to the bomb, smothering the blast with his own body. He dies but saves twenty others. He is a hero. It is an obvious and extreme case, but the morality of it is that, though the waiter lost his own life, he saved all those others. The most extreme such case is that of Christ, whom Christians say died to save the whole of humanity! So, morality is the welfare of other people in society. The instinct is to preserve oneself. That is what a solitary animal would do. The moral animal tries to save others, tries to be a Christ!

Add to Technorati Favorites

Gluten is increasingly added to food for no obvious reason, yet it is a dangerous poison to many people, and in added quantities probably to many who otherwise would be tolerant. You will find it added to many foods to improve its texture with no regard to its harmful effects.

clipped from www.elivinghealth.com Gluten intolerance is now being linked to some major brain development and immune system disorders, and the pathway is not exclusively through the gut.� Depression, migraines, ADHD, autism, obsessive compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, balance problems, epilepsy, inability to concentrate, autoimmune thyroid disease, and dermatitis, are amongst the many non-digestive disorders that have now been linked to gluten intolerance.� �Dr. Lewey suggests that gluten intolerance affects as much as 10% to 30% of the population.� When you consider the number of people on medications for the above mentioned brain and immune system disorders, it’s possible that the numbers are even higher than Dr. Lewey suggests.� �

Add to Technorati Favorites

Sorting the terms gives this simple equation:

( tv )² - ( to )² = ( tc )²

Using the difference of two squares, it reduces to the same form as the original hypothesised equation. When we trace back our observed time to zero at the Big Bang, universal time has the value tc, the time that corresponds with T in our original surmise, the time we took to be Planck’s time, a fundamental unit of time. For universal time to reach zero, our observed time has to become imaginary. It suggests that there never was a Big Bang. On the miniscule scale, time is eternal. Perhaps that will actually please Christians.

Source: askwhy.co.uk

NowPublic

Tags: ZERO | UNIVERSE | Time | observed | God | Culture | BIG | BANG

Add to Technorati Favorites