Est.2007

Barbados Underground

Bringing News and Opinions to the People

Banner promoting anonymous crime reporting with a phone and contact number 1 800 TIPS (8477), featuring the Crime Stoppers logo and a QR code for submitting tips.

Is This The Start Of World War III?

← Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

CONTACT THE BLOGMASTER ONLY

Submitted by Bush Tea on January 1, 2009

Bush Tea has noted the ominous silence of the BU family on the most recent events in the mid east, where the brilliantly logical Israelis are again employing their often tried tactic of bombing and killing their neighbours into co-operation. Clearly their strategists are banking on the hope that this approach MUST work eventually –especially after decades of failure. (Submitted on January 1, 2009 but was not picked-up by BU, sorry about that Bush Tea – David)

Clearly this is a situation, which has been refined by the US republican party, where in the lead-up to a national election, unpopular governments seek to rally national support for a ‘war’ against some unfortunate common foe –preferably someone who can be labelled a ‘terrorist’.

The Israeli plan is obviously to build up the usual hype, kill a few Hamas ‘terrorist’ – and their collateral family members behind whom they are hiding (in their homes) and wait for the USA to protect them in the UN while a face saving ‘truce’ is negotiated.

The ruling party now confirmed at home and by the USA as ‘strong on terror’ and ‘able to protect the country’ would then be re-elected.

That is the plan. Here is the reality.

The current operation by Israel is going to finally bring the militant Palestinian forces together. (This happened 2 years ago in Lebanon for Hezbollah – but that seem to have been forgotten by Israel – or maybe the incumbent party is REALLY desperate).

This will result in the overthrow –this year- of ALL of the pro-western governments in the region –Egypt, Saudi Arabia…. ALL….

A VERY powerful strongman will then emerge, powered by the unifying force generated by this current (and previous) Israeli action, by the USA’s Iraq debacle, by control of huge oil reserves, access to very sophisticated weapons and an ideology fuelled by revenge and war.

The next New Year will be a very bleak one…. And Israel will pay a HUGE price for this approach to neighbour relations. Where is George Washington when he is needed? Is it not he who said that the best way to destroy your enemies is to make them into your friends????

Related Link

Palestinians Continue To Pay A Penalty For The World’s Misdeeds

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

474 responses to “Is This The Start Of World War III?”

  1. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    These fellows for real? Only goes to show how far these fellows would go to prove a point.

    But you check the contents though? It don’t even support what he/she is saying.

    I think that it is Dictionary who is attempting to use the ad hominem genetic fallacy when he tries to use his/her own authorship of something to prove a point. No basis for an argument to try to use yourself as an authority. You so hungry to be right? Right or wrong = correct?

    To whom the argument is address is asked to look from whom the argument came for proof of the argument.

    Wow! Well “ad” (Latin) = to or from. We got to call this one the “Ad hominem”, “Ad hominem” Effect of Fanatic Theology. Wow! Fanatheism?

    Maybe pronounced fana-theism or is it fan-atheism?

  2. Chris Halsall Avatar
    Chris Halsall

    @Dictionary: “For, post Godel we know that no sufficiently rich mathematical system has sets of axioms that are both coherent and complete and that there is no constructive procedure for generating coherent albeit limited sets of axioms.

    So, then let me please ask you this:

    How would you explain a sphere to a circle?

    The same thing, when you get down to it (r == n). Simply an extra dimension within which to apply the equation.

    But if all the circle understands is X and Y, how do you explain to it the concept of Z?

    Or, for that matter Time (T)?

    For context, there are humans walking around right now who are thinking in 11 dimensions. (Read: super-string theorists.) The human mind is an amazing thing.

    Personally, I believe that all Gods are real — if for no other reason that people believe in them.

    My personal issue is when people try to tell me (or anyone else, for that matter) that *their* God is the “correct” and “only” God.

    They might be right; they’re probably wrong.

    And I would argue there’s great communal risk in getting this particular question wrong….

  3. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    ROK (and onlookers):

    Again:

    I have explicitly invited consideration on the merits.

    That is a plain fact in this thread and in the linked items – remember, that includes a chapter form a course reader in a phil course, on the phil toolkit.

    To try to turnabout that into a false accusation that I am pretending to be a “pope” speaking “ex cathedra,” is beyond ridiculous.

    (FYI, I have invited you to comparative difficulties per inference to best explanation across worldviews, including our basic experience of ourselves as conscious, mental, choosing, moral and morally bound creatures. Creatures who relate to other minds. Including here, God.)

    Indeed, what is now happening yet again is a familiar tactic:

    1 –> Red herrings dragged to distract from the track of truth, leading out to strawman caricatures soaked in oil of ad hominem.

    2 –> Ignite and

    3 –> voila, distraction, clouds of confusion and noxious polarising smoke, so the truth is lost sight of.

    As we J’cans say: Cho man, do betta dan dat!

    GEM of TKI

  4. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    CH:

    You are simply raising an irrelevancy.

    Go to Wikipedia and start with that ever so humble source on the import of Godel’s incompleteness theorems.

    You will see that the point I ma making is a serious one. Namely that classical proofs are dead. Dead since about 1930. (And recall, logic is a branch of mathematics.)

    Post Plantinga we are in the age of reasonable, but in principle defeatable warrant: reasonable faith.

    That leads to the logic of inference to best explanation and the question at worldviews level of comparative difficulties across live options. As I discussed in more details than is warranted here in an already linked lecture.

    And for strings it is up to 26 or 27 dims for some things.

    In Q-theory, with matrices of unlimited dims, the number is beyond count. in Leontief type economics, it is 100+ dim matrices to analyse economies.

    So, learn to think vectors and matrices and tensors. And while we are at it, learn to think complex frequency domain [Laplace] and operator mathematics too — as well as discrete time [difference eqns] not just analogue time.

    but that is distration.

    the substance is warrant on worldviews.

    i and millions have met God in the face of Christ, in miracle working life transforming power, power that — for all the sins of Christendom and the churches in it [let him who is without . . .”] — has positively shaped civilisations time and again.

    So, I invite you to take a read of Ac 17 from about v 16 on and let us go to a certain limestone — or is it metamorphosed somewhat? — outcrop in Athens.

    Where do you sit?

    With Dionysius or with the mocking majority of the Council?

    Why?

    And, on the subsequent history, who will shape the future — again?

    GEM of TKI

  5. JC Avatar
    JC

    Chris I have grown to respect and admire you immensely. However, I think you are tooooooo logical! I think you should start to ask the question

    What if ………….. hmmmm just think about it

    respectfully, JC

    I like ROK’s logic to some extent!

  6. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    OK Dictionary, first, let’s get some ground rules out of the way.

    “for you must commit to faith points that would at once fall aside if the same criteria you used above were exerted on a fair basis”

    What is that? According to Chris, you falling back on pre-suppositions? My way is to fill the void. If it can’t be filled with my intelligence and understanding, leave it open until the time comes when it can be filled.

    For me, you either know or don’t know.

    “I believe”, means that you may or may not be correct. Either way you still will not know so long as you cannot bring the matter out of the realm of belief or doubt. I am not willing to commit anything in this discussion to faith.

    Can you deal with that? Let’s see where we can agree??

  7. Avatar
    Anonymous

    @ Dictionary

    You are debating an issue, you point others to web pages for reading in order to understand better, your points.
    The web links are yours, as Dictionary and Kairosfocus are the same person.
    Whether there is substance or not to be found there, the method used by you, seems to me to be, …Deceptive.

  8. JC Avatar
    JC

    ROK Chris is just something else ha ha LOL! I still believe in what if!

    At least one comment which starts with what if will be right! I still think that Chris is STRESS AT TIMES to logical!

    I wonder what his wife/girlfriend puts up with him! lol

    She probalbly has to love him unconditionally! LOL

  9. Chris Halsall Avatar
    Chris Halsall

    @Dictionary: “You are simply raising an irrelevancy.

    I humbly argue the exact opposite.

    I ask my above questions for very specific reasons. You see, I know where the answers lead…

    @D: “Go to Wikipedia and start with that ever so humble source on the import of Godel’s incompleteness theorems.

    With respect, kind Sir, please note that it was myself, above, who /raised/ the work of Gödel.

    Therefore, it might be safe to assume I don’t need to go reference Wikipedia — I have read his work. And, much more importantly, I *understand* its *ramifications*.

    Please, kind Sir, trust me when I tell you that my reading list is vast.

    To summarize my fundamental point for you, if I may…

    The Sciences has known for some time now that it *cannot* answer all questions with *absolute* certainty.

    We find ourselves comfortable with this.

    We still seem to be able to predict the probable future, when asked to and when provided with required inputs, with far more accuracy than any other discipline.

    Very specifically, this admission of universal indeterminism does *not* mean the Sciences are not worth considering….

  10. JC Avatar
    JC

    ha ha ha ha only CH! ha ha

  11. Carlos Avatar
    Carlos

    ROK: The more you write, the more you confirm the utter depth of the vacuum within your mind (soul), and the barrenness of your intellect to even try and understand, let alone comprehend, the erudite postings of GEM of TKI, for what little he has shared, as it is only scratching the tip of the solid, cogent, valid, satisfactory theological, philosophical, factual reasoning, which you are obviously unable to begin to fathom or perceive; so what to then do? Rather than try and learn something of the objective manner in which one has to approach this subject matter, you resort to ad hominem, and fallacious, illogical, reasonless gibberish.

    It is truly a privilege for BU to have GEM of TKI, take time out of his extremely busy schedule, to share a little of his vast knowledge on such a wide range of vitally important subjects, that many are ignorant of, only to have scoffers like yourself, stupidly failing to appreciate the content of this learned scholar.

    BTW, ROK, apart from miscontruing the meaning of ‘Pantheism’ you then create a word that’s not even in the dictionary ‘Pantheology’ maybe the ‘father’ of all lies gave you this one; as he is the originator of all false gods.

    The study of religions, is rightly called, ‘Comparative Religions’ but most certainly not Pantheology.

  12. anon Avatar
    anon

    Carlos
    Why are you wasting your time with ROK?

    Be reminded of the teachings of 1 Corinthians 2 especially verse 14

    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

  13. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    JC

    My problem is that I don’t want to continue long postings like Carlos. He is very verbose and therefore not everything he writes I will answer or even deserves an answer in my view. A lot of it is very repetitive and I am really tired of that kind of discussion as it goes nowhere.

    Look at Dictionary. I think he taking his/her name to heart. What is this phil tool kit. I don’t tell you about those things. They have no weight in this discussion. Give us the essence of your thoughts on the matter I believed was raised by Bush Tea.

    Not to veer off the point too far, but I would much like you to answer the question, who is the God of the Bible and whether or not that god is the same one you think about being omniscient, omnipresent, etc. and created this world?

  14. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    anon

    what is the meaning of “natural” man? You are so bright.

  15. anon Avatar
    anon

    Look it up! Or ask Canon Goodridge! Or give “your take” as usual. Or ask any teenager who attends any good Bible believing and Bible teaching church in Barbados or anywhere in the world, for the meaning of this basic NT concept.

  16. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Carlos,

    Man I want you to know that what I forget you aint learn yet;

    First reference – Online Dictinonary:
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pantheology

    Pantheology:
    1. Obsolete, all that is contained in theology.
    2. a comprehensive, synthetic theology that covers all gods and religious systems. — pantheologist, n. — pantheologic, pantheological, adj.

    Second reference:
    http://www.allwords.com/word-pantheology.html

    Pantheology
    noun (pantheologies)
    A system of theology embracing all religions; a complete system of theology.

    Third Reference:
    PANTHEOLOGY
    Noun
    1. A system of theology embracing all religions; a complete system of theology.

    Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary

    Fourth Reference:
    The Pantheist Index
    Pantheology: Pantheist philosophy concerning the nature of the divine
    http://www.pantheist-index.net/Pantheology/

    I rest my case. Check your oxford too.

  17. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    anon

    Yes, I know you would want me to ask the dead who can’t respond. Are you referring to Canon Seon Goodridge?

    Man, I asked you a direct question. Are you afraid to contradict yourself?

  18. Chris Halsall Avatar
    Chris Halsall

    @JC… I appreciate your kind words.

    And to answer your questions — yes, those who find themselves near me regularly are truly angels. I love working with them all.

    @JC: “I still believe in what if!

    With a nod to you, so do I. Every day I ask myself at least once the “big” question: what if.

    If I may get just a little personal here, it was a significant moment in my life when I decided to become an agnostic, rather than an atheist.

    If I may share, this was only some little while after first understanding Quantum Uncertainty, and the Mandelbrot set.

  19. Observer Avatar
    Observer

    Dictionary/Gem/ GP/ anon/ Carlos

    all the same person

  20. Observer Avatar
    Observer

    Chris,

    on your personal note, the terms are not mutually exclusive (but in your case granted you may ‘only’ be agnostic)

  21. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    anon // February 6, 2009 at 1:58 pm

    Look it up! Or ask Canon Goodridge! Or give “your take” as usual. Or ask any teenager who attends any good Bible believing and Bible teaching church in Barbados or anywhere in the world, for the meaning of this basic NT concept.

    re there BAD bible believing and teaching churches in Barbados ?

    If so, how can we tell..I/we need to know.

  22. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    CH:

    Sigh: >> my reading list is vast . . . >>

    You make me wonder, that you resort to such. But, if we are to move beyond that level, I must condescend to such for at least a moment . . . pardon onlookers; this is not my habit.

    Now, as I write this, I am sitting next to about 100 shelf feet of personal library [after giving away a little short of about as much again here and in Jamaica — comes the point where books just too heavy and bulky, mon]. That does not count the resources of the universities and seminaries whose librarians became my personal friends. Nor the bookshops in three or four countries who had me as a fav customer. [Tell the folks at Cloister hi for me, C. Same for Mrs Myrna T over by Probyn street, and Grace F and gang over by CLC. And Willy — how’s dey bitin mon!?]

    So, let us put away such childish follies, nuh? (Such are utterly irrelevant to warrant.)

    Now, on substance, at last a light goes on:

    >> The Sciences has known for some time now that it *cannot* answer all questions with *absolute* certainty. >>

    1 –> Yep, and a humbling lesson it was too; esp. when the wonderful edifice of classical physics came crashing into the world of the very fast and the very small, from about 1880 on.

    2 –> Now; if only we will learn the lesson of Job 38:

    >>1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm. He said:

    2 “Who is this that darkens my counsel
    with words without knowledge?

    3 Brace yourself like a man;
    I will question you,
    and you shall answer me.

    4 “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.

    5 Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    6 On what were its footings set,
    or who laid its cornerstone-

    7 while the morning stars sang together
    and all the angels [a] shouted for joy?

    8 “Who shut up the sea behind doors
    when it burst forth from the womb,

    9 when I made the clouds its garment
    and wrapped it in thick darkness,

    10 when I fixed limits for it
    and set its doors and bars in place,

    11 when I said, ‘This far you may come and no farther;
    here is where your proud waves halt’?

    12 “Have you ever given orders to the morning,
    or shown the dawn its place . . . >>

    3 –> So, let us not confuse reasonable reliability for scientific explanatory models with truth in the Aristotelian sense: >> that which says of what is, that it is, and of what is not, that it is not>> [Metaphysics, 1011b, paraphrased.]

    4 –> Especially, as YHWH said, when it comes to the remote, unobserved, unrepeatable; deep past.

    5 –> But it gets deeper than that. For, as I noted above, *Godel’s surprising results of 1930 mean that proof in the classical sense is dead.* The world of the mind is thus irreducibly complex and we cannot compass it with a finite net of coherent axioms.

    6 –> Going further, as we try to prove A, we end up at B, which in turn needs C, . . . until we face the alternative of an infinite regress or else a point where we accept somethings as first plausibles, for whatever reason. These mark out our *faith points*; defining the cores of our worldviews. [And I insist it is high time we recognise this as a word in its own right in English!]

    7 –> At that stage, it is a matter of comparative difficulties across factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power, if we are to avoid circularity or fatal inconsistency.

    8 –> Which in turn means that *the arrogance of scientism is at an end*: If theory T then observations O; observations O so far, so T i so; is affirming the consequent — a logical fallacy that confuses implication for equivalence. Ability to predict is a test of reliability within some range of tested validity, but not of truth. [Worse, widely divergent theories, much less worldviews, can be largely or even wholly empirically equivalent.]

    9 –> Worse, evolutionary materialism, the institutionally dominant form of scientism, is demonstrably incoherent, once it is asked to account for the credibility of the mind per its materialistic dynamics and assumptions. (I won’t bother to give some links to more details on this just now, I have an accusation of deception for the “crime” of doing that to address . . .

    10 –> So, CH, we are at the point where we must all live by faith, the question is in what and whom, why. reasonable faith is the best we can hope for, some would say — and given our bounded rationality, limited knowledge and proneness to error, they have a point — *relatively* reasonable faith at that.

    11 –> In that context, I *report*, with millions over the years, including a goodly number of the brightest deepest minds ever, minds that have shaped the course of history decisively — e.g. Paul is the real founder of our civilisation as we know it; having synthesised the heritage of Jerusalem, Athens and Rome through Christ — that I have come to know God as I know other minds, in the face of the once crucified, now risen, transforming Jesus of Nazareth.
    ___________

    So now, CH: whose report do you believe, why?

    GEM of TKI

  23. Observer Avatar
    Observer

    mental illness is truly disturbing to see close at hand

  24. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    Anonymous:

    >> the method used by you, seems to me to be, …Deceptive. >> [ February 6, 2009 at 1:09 pm ]

    And, onlookers, wherein lieth this “deception”?

    Why: >>You are debating an issue, you point others to web pages for reading in order to understand better, your points.

    The web links are yours, as Dictionary and Kairosfocus are the same person.
    Whether there is substance or not to be found there, the method used by you, seems to me to be, …Deceptive.>>

    This is both nonsensical and slanderous.

    For, I have referred those who need to see more off-site to several detailed sources, including some I have compiled and compressed over the years from many tens of thousands of pages of reading and research. (Some of those linked pages even state plainly that no authority is better than his facts and reasoning relative to those facts . . . which is where I invite us to focus, always.)

    FYI, whoever you are, it is obviously *not* deceptive to provide further details, balancing perspectives and substantiating information..

    For shame!

    And, if you now imagine to accuse me of pretending to be a different person from the one who has signed his works online, why then did I use my initials an those of my consultancy personality at every stage up above?

    In short, onlookers, someone hiding behind anonymity is simply tryintg the old ad hominem fallacy: attack the man and you distract attention from the substance.

    So, recognise the sleazy tactic for what it is, and then let us address the substance.

    Finally, you are greatly mistaken, sir A, if you imagine I am interested in *debate*:

    >> . . . that wicked art that makes the worse appear the better case, being therein aided and abetted by the deceptive arts of rhetoric: those of *persuasion*, not proof.>> [Jefferson, echoing Socrates, paraphrased.]

    My intention was, is, and ever shall be very different indeed: **on being asked to provide some balance and perspective on some issues where conventional wisdom and what is sound are vastly divergent, I have sought to engage in *dialogue* guided by reason and objective evidence.**

    And, I suspect, so some benefit; at least to some onlookers.

    Now, sirs, good day.

    GEM of TKI

  25. Chris Halsall Avatar
    Chris Halsall

    @Mr. Chairman: “Thank you Mr. Dictionary”

    @Mr. Chairman: “Mr. Halsall. Do you wish to cross examine?”

    No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In my opinion, there’s no “there” there.

    And, therefore, there’s no need to cross examine.

    I feel comfortable leaving Mr. Dictionary’s response to stand (or fail) on its own merits.

    Thank you Mr. Chairman, et al….

  26. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    PS: As to the matter in the main, I have long since addressed it. On the secondary matters that have come up, I believe I have now doe so also. As to the notion that the tools of serious analysis — the phil toolkit and simpler and supplementary forms of the same basic matter — are irrelevant to a situation in which gross error traces to their neglect; that is its own refutation.

  27. Dictionary Avatar
    Dictionary

    PPS: CH: that one is called whistling by the graveyard in the dark.

    This duppy has something to say:

    “BOO!”

  28. JC Avatar
    JC

    Not to veer off the point too far, but I would much like you to answer the question, who is the God of the Bible and whether or not that god is the same one you think about being omniscient, omnipresent, etc. and created this world?
    __________________________

    @ ROK

    At first I beleived in the traditional Bible beliefs of who God is. HOWEVER,I am like you; I believe in PRINCIPLES, ETHICS AND MORALS and RETRIBUTION!

    Like you, I believe that God lives within man. Yet, he gave us a brain to truly seek and COMPREHEND who and what he is ….. I think that we can never truly understand everything unless we seek the truth!

    Therefore, as I have gotten older I have realised that GOD IS LOVE!

  29. Carlos Avatar
    Carlos

    Anon, I’ll answer ROK’s question, “What is the meaning of ‘natural’ man?”

    To understand the context of what the Word of God says concering the ‘natural’ man, let’s pickup from Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 2 verse 6.

    “However, we (Christians) speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet NOT in the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.” (v. 6).

    First, Paul in not here drawing a distinction between ‘exoteric’ and ‘esoteric’ wisdom as the Gnostics did for their initiates, but simply to the difference in teaching babes (3:1) and adults or grownmen (common us of teleios for relative perfection, for adults as in I Cor. 14:20; Phil 3:15; eph. 4:13; Heb. 5:14). As some were simply old babes and unable in spite of their years to digest solid spiritual food, “ample teaching as to the Person of Christ and the eternal purpose of God.

    For this ‘wisdom’ of God, does NOT belong to this passing age of fleeting things, but to the enduring and eternal (Ellicott).

    “But we speak (believers) the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden mystery which God ordained before the ages for our glory.” (v.7).

    “Which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.” (v.8).

    “For it is written:

    “Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man, the things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”

    “But God has revealed them to us (believers) through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.” (v. 9).

    “Now, we have received not the spirit of this world, BUT the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.” (v. 12).

    “These things we also speak, NOT in the words which man’s wisdom teaches, but comparing spiritual things with spiritual.” (v.13).

    “But the ‘natural’ man (psuchikos de anthropos, an spiritually unregenerate man) DOES NOT receive, cannot receive) the things of the Spirit of God, for they (are what?) FOOLISHNESS to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (v. 14).

    “But he who is spiritual ( Born Again, spiritually regenerated) judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.” (v.15).

    Therefore, the ‘natural’ man, who is not ‘Saved’ is everyone who has not repented, and by faith, received Christ as Saviour and Lord, it makes no difference if he is a Ph.D in astro physics, or the common garbage collector.

    The issue here is that ‘secular’ wisdom is ‘foolishness’ to God and His infinite wisdom, which He has given in some measure to those who love Him, and The Lord Jesus Christ.

    Hence, the ‘natural’ man, is spiritually unregenerate, and therefore frustratingly, unable to make any sense of God’s Spiritual wisdom, which is ‘foolishness’ to them.

  30. Chris Halsall Avatar
    Chris Halsall

    @Dictionary: “PPS: CH: that one is called whistling by the graveyard in the dark. This duppy has something to say: “BOO!”

    So, then, @Dictionary…

    Is it unreasonable to interpret your language immediately above as a death threat?

    As in, if I’m found dead tomorrow, would it be unreasonable to conclude that you *might* be responsible?

    …Just asking….

  31. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Carlos,

    I have to wonder about you. I just googled natural man out of curiousity (about the 2nd or 3rd time randomly) and it is so funny and coincidental that the first reference coming up, is the same one you giving above. Who and what are you?

    However! The definition I know of natural man is:
    People whose manner of life and experience is guided by their natural desires and instincts, rather than by any theological theory or concept of God. As some say, people guided by their noses; animals.

    This is a way of life and is reportedly the state of early man. However, I put this into the category of propaganda that served the imperialists and also into the category of religious power play that now serves Christians like you.

    A quick look at African history, will probably not trace a time when Africans were not spiritual or did not have a concept of God or even of the super natural.

    Before the Hebrews came, the Egyptian civilisation was based on a plethora of gods and the idea of a Supreme God. (and I really looking forward to your response to that comment, Carlos)

    Now I would like to show observers how misleading people like Carlos are. I asked for the meaning of two words. In answer to the question, the man places the words within a context and then proceeded to place a Biblical explanation on the word. Why?

    Because he now wants to change the meaning of the words to mean all non-believers. This implies that the men who lived in those early days had no concept of natural man. I put it to you that their concept of natural man was understood better then than you could even imagine now.

    By then, the term was a dying one and there were few men that did not understand morality, retribution, etc. and therefore capable of understanding the concept of a supreme being.

    As a matter of fact, I would argue that much of the fundamentals of the Christian faith is based on a rationalisation of Egyptian culture and religion. It laid a base and Christianity may be considered a modification of it. I am not sure how to put it but certainly to say it was an improvement on Egyptian religion may really not be accurate. Maybe simplification of Egyptian religion may be a better description.

    You like research. Do the research. Check and see how far back Egyptian civilisation is dated by science and compare it with the beginning of the world according to the Bible.

    I am beginning to doubt that you are who you say you are Carlos. I think you were planted. Maybe by the Israelis.

    I have been watching you. I think that you are cutting and pasting directly from google searches. I further believe that you do not have the knowledge you say you have, you arguing by bare cut and paste and that is why your posts are so long.

    I would be very glad if David or somebody put a study on your posts and see if you not cutting and pasting. I just don’t have the time for you and that.

  32. Loizeaux Avatar
    Loizeaux

    Mr Rok
    I can see that you really understand the Bible. Can you answer a few questions for me?

    What is the purpose of the Book of Ruth?
    Does it has any relation or relevance to the teachings of the New Testament? And if so what is the relationship? Thank you

  33. Straight talk Avatar
    Straight talk

    I’m happy to be a mere natural man.

    From reading all the above mumbo-jumbo I’d rather leave these unprovable arguments to you unnatural men to ponder over until the rapture overtakes us all….or not.

  34. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Loizeaux

    I really don’t know enough to answer that question. I did not even know there was a relationship. You are another incarnation of Carlos?

  35. anon Avatar
    anon

    @Rok

    “I asked for the meaning of two words. In answer to the question, the man places the words within a context and then proceeded to place a Biblical explanation on the word. Why?”

    In the CONTEXT of 1 Corinthians 2, Carlos has answered you correctly. Without googling anything, I can tell you that that is the same thing that I was taught in the “Bible teaching” Baptist at which I was discipled in Bridgetown many years ago. It is the explanation in the leading Bible commentaries that I have read also.

    Anon raised the verse 1 Cor 2:14 which is a scripture that all believers are taught to memorize very early in thier spiritual walk. As a professing Christian, Carlos not only correctly interpreted the passage in its context, but he gave it a Biblical explanation as you said. What else could he have said. He went so far as to indicate what greek word was translated as “natural man.”

    In contrast you rattled on ad nauseam ad infinitumque with little substance, as you gave us “your take” as usual.

  36. Observer Avatar
    Observer

    anon writes :

    “Carlos has answered you correctly”

    “Carlos not only correctly interpreted the passage in its context, but he gave it a Biblical explanation”

    ====================

    I think there is medication you can get for this

  37. Observer Avatar
    Observer

    anon writes :

    “Anon raised the verse 1 Cor 2:14 which is a scripture that all believers are taught to memorize very early in thier spiritual walk”

    ===============

    did you forget who you are?

    cant be easy I guess

  38. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @anon

    I asked for a definition not a Biblical interpretation. See how the man loaded the scriptures? I must now accept the definition of natural man as the one proffered by Biblical explanation?

    I done with you all, man. There is no veering away from your common religious fanatic agendas. Dictionary, Carlos, anon, et al, continue smartly. I have been assured by Tech, Observer and JC that you preaching to the wind.

    I notice that I ain’t hearing Bush Tea. It would be good to explore some more personal philosophy. BT I promise I will not let them side-track me anymore. I would be glad if you would respond to my response to you. Lay a base and let’s go forward, there is a lot to get through.

    I also see JC putting forward some philosophy too. Let’s go. I am sure that the audience would be glad for something fresh like this.

  39. Technician Avatar
    Technician

    I would ban Bush Tea from BU… 🙂

    Look at all this from your submission on Jan 1 2009…

    I just wish some could just speak in layman terms so that ignorant, uneducated miscreants like me could just start to understand some of the words without reaching for the dictionary (not the poster) or Google or the KJV.

    I swear I was back at Foundation listening to Mr.Reid in one of his Latin (yes, I had to do the damn subject) classes or Mr.Gilpin Jones going on during one of his philosophical flash backs.
    We other illiterates want to learn too but please fellows…..in bite size chunks ……I here choking on these big words..:-)

  40. anon Avatar
    anon

    Rok
    Let me say it again

    “Anon raised the verse 1 Cor 2:14 which is a scripture that all believers are taught to memorize very early in thier spiritual walk”

    Call it definition; call it Biblical interpretation, call it what you like but certainly in the circles that I have been in within my Christian experience, once you quote that verse, the explanation Carlos gave is the one to expect.

    Just as I would expect you in answer to the question put by Loizeaux to say that the story of the book of Ruth is related to the NT teaching of redemption by grace as taught in Ephesians chapter 2.

    But that is another subject.

  41. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    Thank you anon for the explanation.

  42. Carlos Avatar
    Carlos

    Mr. ROK!

    Please ask David or anyone else, to ‘…put a study on your posts and see if you not cutting and pasting…” from Google!

    I would welcome that, as it would entirely vindicate me from your false assumptions! Go right ahead!

    To Professor Chris H:

    You thought you could come down here (in the Caribbean) with your lofty North American, ever so vastly read, self-imposed arrogance, and get away with it?

    Man, you met your match in GEM of TKI, and he didn’t even warm up in dealing with you; he would run circles around you, like a Cat, no a Lion, playing with a half dead Rat!

  43. Observer Avatar
    Observer

    no actually I think chris realised only one player had a full deck

  44. ccorps Avatar
    ccorps

    @ Technician

    **************************************
    I would ban Bush Tea from BU… 🙂
    **************************************
    Cud dear Tech, give the Bushman a break – I had no idea it would come to this….

    I was even trying to get ROK to engage in some simple logical deduction to see if we can develop a reasoned concept about these matters, but the man blank me and gone off talking with his bright friends in some strange language…

    You see why I like MME now? although he bright like a stadium light he does make things sound fairly simple.

    All I would like to discuss is things like this-
    If we agree that there is a God who even brighter than MME – surely he would has a sensible plan for our life and this world….

    surely it would be logical, and understandable by bright people like ROK – and especially by the Halsall fellow who obviously knows everything

    and surely there must be a reason why this vital information has been so difficult to find and comprehend….

    …someone must have answers – and Carlos, I mean fairly short answers for me and Techie – cause you like you join the PDC or something…LOL

  45. Georgie Porgie Avatar
    Georgie Porgie

    “surely there must be a reason why this vital information has been so difficult to find and comprehend….”

    It is in one sense, and it isnt in another. It is if you have someone to help you put the pieces of the gig saw together, or good books and the time. It isn’t, because most folk don’t have the patience to help. I hope what I write below is simple enough and not too long.

    I believe as was stated on this thread by another that it is It is very important for all Bible students to have some system which they employ to work their way through the Bible. The divisions below, which I have used for over 30 years were taken from Ray Baugham’s Bible History Visualized, Moody Press 1963, but similar classifications that are just as useful may be found in The Visualized Bible. The division of the Bible that I have used for analysis in this study is as follows:

    •CREATION. Genesis 1& 2
    •CONSCIENCE. Genesis 3 &4
    •CAPTAIN NOAH. Genesis 5-9
    •CONFUSION OF TONGUES. Genesis 10-11
    •CALL OF ABRAM. Genesis 11-50
    •CARRYING BURDENS. Exodus 1-15
    •CAMP. Rest of Exodus, Numbers Leviticus Deuteronomy (fairly tough going so most quit by the time they get here- just skip these and come back later but you wont really master the OT unless you master these books, because the OT writers are always harping back to these laws)
    •CONQUEST. Joshua Judges Ruth
    •CROWN. I &2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings 1 & 2 Chronicles read with the Pre exhilic prophets
    •CAPTIVITY. Exhilic Prophets Exekiel & Daniel
    •CONSTRUCTION. Ezra Nehemiah Esther and the Post Exhilic Prophets (Haggai Zechariah Malachi)
    Read Sapiental literature on the side Psalms Proverbs Songs Ecclesiastes Job
    •CROSS. Gospels
    •CHURCH. Acts, Epistles
    •COMING OF CHRIST. Revelation some parts of Epistles
    •CONDEMNATION. Much of Revelation
    •CONSUMATION. Revelation last two chapters

    Ray Baugham advises one to memorize the 16 ‘C” words above and then over time you will flesh out the information, and make correlations.

    For example, over time you will connect the story of Cain & Abel in Genesis 4 with the references to these two brothers in Hebrews 11, Jude and 1 John 3. And you will notice that in I John 2 that sin is classifies as falling into three categories thus, lust of the eyes lust of the flesh and pride of life.
    Then you might note that Adam & Eve failed in this regard in Genesis 3, just as we do now, but that Jesus passed this test as recorded in Mathew 4 & Luke 4.

    Most Bible students read the Bible once a year, so after a while they know most of the narratives, and have problems mainly with interpreting the Prophetic Scriptures, the Wisdom literature and the last four books of the Pentateuch.

    I found that such a simple plan help me to memorize wade through and analyze the Word. This is a good start.

    Then you can look into BOOK by BOOK starting with the short books like 2 John 3 John Jude Philemon Titus etc You can do this using what aids available to you. Now a lot of good info is on the net that is helpful, like Dr Constable’s Notes or Ray Stedman. At least that’s how I started. When you get the grasp of a number of books over time you start to see the correlations with other books you have studied already, and it tends to get easier.
    Revelation becomes easy if you have got a fair grasp of the other prophetic Scriptures, and see this book as a river into which the tributaries of other prophecies enter.

  46. Rev Dr Dick Hertz Avatar
    Rev Dr Dick Hertz

    Some Einstein quotes:

    Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.

    A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

    Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

    There are few really profound problems of the human condition that cannot be solved by rice and peas and stew washed down by some lemonade. (OK this is not from Einstein but a Rev Dr Dick Hertz original!)

  47. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @JC
    “Like you, I believe that God lives within man. Yet, he gave us a brain to truly seek and COMPREHEND who and what he is ….. I think that we can never truly understand everything unless we seek the truth! Therefore, as I have gotten older I have realised that GOD IS LOVE!”
    …………………………………………………………….

    I think you are on the right track. Keep LOVE in focus and you can’t go wrong.

    One thing I would say is that there is a magic about life that happens when thought and action are simultaneous.

    There are also a lot of lessons in oriental and African religious principles too. Focussed energy or what I called nervous energy is extremely powerful.

    Let me tell you some of the experiences I have had. I definitely need to get back on track. These things would happen as a matter of course:

    1. When the telephone rings you know who is at the other end before you pick up.

    2. Think hard about somebody and imagine them right there in your presence and they will either call or turn up.

    3. In driving, you know whether traffic is around a blind corner or not.

    4. I once broke a new wheel tool in half on a stubborn nut with my bare hands; nervous energy.

    5. You are always in a knick of time to get what you want; or whatever it is that you want, turns up.

    6. Whatever you do, even against all odds, it turns out your way; sometimes miraculously, so long as you are sufficiently focussed on it.

    7. You are always able to call a spade and see things before they happen.

    There is much more, but having had the experience, I wondered if this is the state Christ spoke about. Here I was having a powerful experience without any focus on the Bible or Christianity.

    All men can reach this state of consciousness and beyond. Imagine a world where everybody is like that. Politicians would have a hard time getting away with corruption.

    To me, this was living proof of the power that lies within us all. One thing you must never do is abuse those powers and never blame yourself for anything or go into depression. It can turn back on you, like how the Scorpion would sting itself.

    It calls for spiritual strength, mental energy and a responsibility to oneself and one’s neighbours.

  48. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    @ ROK

    Perhaps I can explain some of your phenomena-

    1. When the telephone rings you know who is at the other end before you pick up.
    —–You only have ONE friend!

    2. Think hard about somebody and imagine them right there in your presence and they will either call or turn up.
    —–You only have one friend!

    3. In driving, you know whether traffic is around a blind corner or not.
    ___Traffic is ALWAYS everywhere in Bdos

    4. I once broke a new wheel tool in half on a stubborn nut with my bare hands; nervous energy.
    — Faulty (cheap) wheel tool…

    5. You are always in a knick of time to get what you want; or whatever it is that you want, turns up.
    – You only have one friend!

    6. Whatever you do, even against all odds, it turns out your way; sometimes miraculously, so long as you are sufficiently focussed on it.
    –You are not particular.

    7. You are always able to call a spade and see things before they happen.
    — HUH?

    …just pulling your legs ROK, I understand what you mean.
    ROTFL

  49. ROK Avatar
    ROK

    @ccorps

    I can’t remember seeing anything from you unless you is somebody else here like Bush Tea.

  50. Bush Tea Avatar
    Bush Tea

    sorry ROK. I was experimenting. That is Bush Tea.

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading