โ† Back

Your message to the BLOGMASTER was sent

Submitted by Terence Blackett

JesuitsBy 1540, the Society of Jesus or the Jesuits as they are called were established with the principal function to win back the Protestant countries of Europe by any religio-political means necessary and to bring the World Order under the aegis of Vatican rule.

The underhanded working of the โ€œBlack Princeโ€ became diabolically subterranean and sinister. In its ethos, where its reach has now been felt for the last 460 years the โ€œdark forcesโ€ of the underworld planned, schemed, concocted and spun a web of lying intrigue and subterfuge to mask their evil deeds of deception. We know however that these malignant powers have been at work for thousands of years, mangling the world in its tentacles even long before this Order came of age.

The sinister timeline of Jesuit theology and its influence has been such that it has infected every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It has created storm clouds of the magnitude that 2 major world wars have been fought in its name resulting in what Edmond Paris describes as:

โ€œA great accumulation of clouds, where lightning is powerful and the storm is bound to break outโ€ฆ Between 1939 and 1945, the storm killed 57 million souls ravaging and ruining Europe. We must be on our guard; another and even worse catastrophe may lie hidden in these same clouds; lighting may strike again, throwing the world into “abysses human wisdom can foresee”, but out of which, if it had the misfortune to let itself be thrown into, no power (on earth) could rescue it.โ€ [Emphasis supplied is mine].

Modern Christianity has largely forgotten the importance of the Protestant Reformation of the 1500โ€™s. Moreover, its resemblance to the church set up by Christ at His ascension pales in comparison today for what passes off as the Christian faith.

After 1260 years of papal oppression, the church awoke after a deep, dense, dark night of sleep to realize that superstition was rife and the witness for Biblical truth that was slain and martyred was left for dead, lying in the streets in an age of reason โ€“ a Renaissance bolstered by a move away from feudalism to modernity. But the dawn of the light of the Reformation meant that the opening of prophetic revelation (once sealed up) had finally been opened.

On the scene of action came Martin Luther. It has been said that the Reformation first discovered Jesus Christ, and then, in the blazing light of Christ, it discovered the Antichrist. This mighty, Spirit-filled movement, for Christ and against the Antichrist, shook the world.

H. Grattan Guinness wrote these memorable words: โ€œFrom the first, and throughout, that movement [the Reformation] was energized and guided by the prophetic word. Luther never felt strong and free to war against the Papal apostasy till he recognized the pope as Antichrist. It was then that he burned the Papal bull (shit*) [Emphasis supplied is mine].

But the Jesuits answered!

โ€œIn the reaction that followed, all the powers of hell seemed to be let loose upon the adherents of the Reformation. War followed war: tortures, burnings, and massacres were multiplied.โ€

So in 1545 the Council of Trent was set up to counter the Reformation and ending its 3rd session in 1563 where the Catholic Church hierarchy gave the Jesuits the specific assignment of destroying Protestantism and bringing people back to the Mother Church. This was to be done not only through the Inquisition and through torture, but also through insidious and pervasive theology.

At the Council of Trent, the Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bibleโ€™s Antichrist prophecies to the Roman Catholic Church. Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain published a commentary on Revelation as a counter-interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters to the end time rather than to the history of the Church. According to concocted Jesuit theology – The Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem at the end of time.

Ribera’s antithesis on the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God โ€”asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther and many reformers was now dispelled and they set up an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God. โ€œThe result of his work [Riberaโ€™s] was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth.โ€

On the heels of Ribera was Jesuit scholar, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621). The (Futurism) teachings of these Jesuits has paved the way for much of present day Christian eschatology especially of the role that the Antichrist will play in world events in the Last Days – a damnable โ€œLIEโ€ perpetrated against the Holy Writ – Scriptures which clearly states that the โ€œspiritโ€ of Antichrist has always been in the world and Paul acknowledges that the โ€œman of sinโ€ would be revealed in the Apocalyptic discourse.

So Jesuit Futurism swept 1,500 years of prophetic history under the proverbial carpet by inserting its infamous โ€œGAPโ€ theory โ€“ a heresy which teaches that when Rome fell, prophecy stopped, only to continue again right around the time of the Rapture, thus the โ€œgapโ€ was created. The ten horns, the little horn, the Beast, and the Antichrist have nothing to do with Christians until this โ€œlast-day Antichristโ€ should appear. According to this viewpoint, there were no prophecies being fulfilled during the 1260 years of the Dark Ages!

However, it was during the 19th century that this Jesuit form of theology took on a spurious global dimension where the likes of Dr. Samuel Roffey Maitland (1792-1866), a lawyer and Bible scholar, became a librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury and found Ribera doctrines and began to widely publish and advocate these deceptive teachings.

After Dr. Maitland came James H. Todd, a professor of Hebrew at the University of Dublin. Todd accepted the futuristic ideas of Maitland, publishing his own supportive pamphlets and books. Then came John Henry Newman (1801-1890), a member of the Church of England and a leader of the famous Oxford Movement (1833-1845). Newman soon became a full Roman Catholic, and later even a highly honored Cardinal. Then came the much-respected Scottish Presbyterian minister, Edward Irving (1792-1834), the acknowledged forerunner of both the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. When Irving turned to the prophecies, he eventually accepted the one-man Antichrist idea of Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, yet he went a step further. Somewhere around 1830, Edward Irving began to teach the unique idea of a two-phase return of Christ, the first phase being a โ€œSECRET RAPTUREโ€ prior to the rise of the Antichrist.

Then came John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) – a brilliant lawyer, pastor, and theologian, who wrote more than 53 books on Bible subjects and is credited as the father of Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is the theory that God deals with mankind in major dispensations or periods. Darbyโ€™s contribution to the development of evangelical theology has been so great that he like Edward Irving also became a strong promoter of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture followed by a one-man Antichrist. In fact, this teaching has become a hallmark of Dispensationalism. John Nelson Darby laid much of the foundation for the present popular removal of Danielโ€™s 70th week away from history and from Jesus Christ in favor of applying it to a future Tribulation after the Rapture.

The greatest of all these Jesuits subliminal adherents was Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), a Kansas lawyer who was greatly influenced by the writings of Darby. In 1909, Scofield published the first edition of his famous Scofield Reference Bible. In the early 1900s, this Bible became so popular in American Protestant Bible schools that it was necessary to print literally millions of copies. This was the beginning of the end of American Protestant Christianity and a proper exegetical understanding of prophecy and the Scripture.

The Moody Bible Institute and the Dallas Theological Seminary have strongly supported the teachings of John Nelson Darby, and this has continued to fuel Futurismโ€™s growth. Then in the 1970s, Pastor Hal Lindsey, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, released his blockbuster book The Late Great Planet Earth. This 177-page, easy-to-read volume brought Futurism to the masses of American Christianity, and beyond. 30 million copies later and in over 30 languages. Through The Late Great Planet Earth, Jesuit Futurism took a strong hold over the Protestant Christian world.

So in the 1990s, Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins took the future one-man Antichrist idea of Scofield, Darby, Irving, Newman, Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, and turned it into Blockbuster books and movies like Left Behind produced by Jack Van Impe, Peter and Paul Lalonde, and John Hagee. This has been the direction of American Protestant theology which has been pervasive across the globe for the last 30 years.

โ€œThe proper eschatological term for the view most widely taught today is futurism which fuels the confusion of Dispensationalism. The futuristic school of Bible prophecy came from the Roman Catholic Church, specifically her Jesuit theologians.โ€

Who has the right theologyโ€”those who were burned at the stake for Jesus Christ, or those who lit the fires? Who has the true Bible doctrineโ€”the martyrs or their persecutors? Who has the correct interpretation of the Antichristโ€”those who died trusting in the blood of Christ, or those who shed the blood of Godโ€™s dear saints? This is the real issue today in Christianityโ€ฆ

You be the judge!

(Much thanks to my friend Pastor Steve for his wonderful insightful knowledge and his literary references, contributions and wisdom).

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

209 responses to “The Subliminal Deception Within Modern Christianity:- The Teachings Of Jesuit Theology And Its Influence Upon Bible Prophecy”


  1. Am I the only one that thinks God must have a real cruel and sadistic streak for creating a system that says if you don’t believe the right way, you are going to burn alive in hell for eternity and then at the same time make it so damn easy for the tricksters like the Jesuits, Jehovah Witness, Mormons (or pick your own favourite “false” religion here) to deceive millions (trying their best to only do what their finite minds and understanding tell them God wants them to do) into believing the wrong way thereby consigning themselves to the eternal flames of hell.


  2. Of course you are not the only one GM!

    That is the exact conclusion that any sane, intelligent person would come to – if they depended on the likes of GP, Dictionary, Zoe and Terence (or any highly educated preacher) to explain the mysteries of God.


  3. @ Green Monkey

    I am with you there! There are lots more like us.


  4. his was to be done not only through the Inquisition and through torture, but also through insidious and pervasive theology.

    @TB

    Did you cite source to support the above?


  5. @DAVID
    “Did you cite source to support the above?”

    In the condensed annotated version, brevity would not allow but in the expansed version citations and references are duly noted as in this case – DR. MALACHI MARTIN* former eminent theologian – thirty years an Exorcist, expert on the Catholic Church, former Jesuit and professor at the Vatican’s Pontifical University…


  6. Dr.Ronald Cooke argues that “it is obvious to anyone who is even remotely interested in the Vatican conspiracy that times have certainly changed the attitudes of Protestant Christians toward the Jesuits. The word “Jesuit” used to conjure up in the minds of those who heard it a malevolent and satanic rictus. But times have changed. Today Jesuits are
    accorded reverence and respect in all segments of Western society, and yes, even allowed back into Eastern society after being banned from countries like China for almost thirty years…”

    What is remarkable to a handful of theological scholars is the emphasis being placed on ISLAM & the CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS that is going on between Western strands of so-called democracy and the much heralded resurgent epiphenomena of Islamization that is portrayed in mass media to be sweeping the world under the guise of ISLAMIC TERROR*…

    All the while, no one is paying attention to the dark forces at work under the guise of legit religion where a combination of ancient sociopolitical and spiritual powers are at work to bring every stratum of our world under the behest of an enemy that will remove every liberty we have held dear….

    For the students of history know only too well – “HISTORY HAS A WAY OF REPEATING ITSELF”….because men refuse to learn the lessons…


  7. There is so much Religion and so little “love” in the world, if one tenth of our religion could be transformed into love for each other, a much better world we would have but that would not allow for the rightness of a myriad of religious views; so the wheel spins on its axel scattering even those who are in silent prayer.


  8. you can’t criticise any one for their beliefs
    because nobody really knows anything
    it’s all abstract concepts and theories
    jah know


  9. BU made the following comment on another blog which maybe equally relevant given Yardbroom’s comment.

    Is it possible that our new Arch Bishop John Holder might see the cause of pushing a national agenda for honesty and selflessness as a #1 priority?

    He is said to be academically equipped to lead the Anglican Church; but what does this mean?

    Perhaps Dr. GP et al can explain how the compartmentalization of how the Anglicans practice their faith can help wider society.


  10. Why should a GOD want me to be forever damned with Lucifer simply because I refused to believe.Check this out, I didnot have a choice wether I want to come into this world and if I did and knowing what I know now about the human race I would certainly take a pass on that one.


  11. Well said, Pat, Green Monkey and Yardbroom.


  12. Religion wether organised or disorganised is a social construct to explain the unexplain of the physical world.And this construct is brought about by an inherent biological impulse of wanting to” believe in something”. Not many of us are able to escape this social schackle. At best most become blind followers and at worst others become slaves/fundamentalists.

    The question is, what good deeds have religion done for the world lately? If the present state of the human condition is by any means of judging our virtures that is buttressed by our religious beliefs – then our religosity have been weighed in the balance and have been found wanting.

    I always believe with our deep flaws it was a great sin to bring the human race into existence.


  13. Batman and Robin taking real long to get out the batcave and jump all over this.

    David..is the Bat signal up and working?


  14. Religion is bare boo. Those who “believe” do so because they are brainwashed by being raised in homes by other brainwashed. Here is something I want all the bare boo people to think about. Millions of non-believers inhabit the planet and lead happy and successful lives. The devil has not visited them once.


  15. Amen to that, Anonymous.

    The paradox that one religion is better than the other has been battered from day one.

    I find peace in ignoring “formal religion”, and believe me, I’m happier without it!!!!!!


  16. All:

    Noticed this thread while sorting out some web page manipulation headaches.

    Noticed some pretty hot words.

    Not so good.

    I think a few balancing remarks are in order.

    1] Vatican c 1500 vs c 1960 – 2010

    We must not forget that in the era TB in the main discusses, the Vatican was a state in the system of states in Europe; and that many who became popes, cardinals, etc were more the statesman a la Machiavelli than the servant of God. This included open wars and cloak and dagger operations, with all the nasty conspiriacies that go with that.

    No doubt about it.

    This is a part of the backdrop of the Protestant reformation, and of the very horrible wars and outrages that accompanied that.

    For centuries thereafter, Rome was — for good reason – suspect, and especially the Jesuits, who often provided secret agents. [And here Wiki — warts and all — gives us some backdrop that is otherwise hard to find.]

    And, unfortunately for the church of Rome, the Tridentine Council of the 1500s met against that backdrop and locked into place somethings that are probably at minimum a bit questionable. For, the reformers — who had sins aplenty on their own accounts — had a point. (BTW, as John Paul II acknowledged.)

    But it is 400+ years later now.

    So, let us learn from history, let us note duly the sins of the Jesuits, and let us learn to move on. For instance in recent years conservative Jesuits fought a rearguard theological action to defend form the radicals who — fellow Jesuits — were actually in some cases taking up guns to fight alongside marxist guerrillas as the militant wing of liberation theology.

    As a result the last pope took the nuanced position that liberation is important but must respect historic Christian teaching and the centrality of the gospel. This is the backdrop of events in the Philippines and Poland, where Cardinal Sin and the pope himself were significant figures.

    So, though I have principled theological differences with Rome, I am not inclined to nasty accusations or quarrels.

    2] RE: “Am I the only one that thinks God must have a real cruel and sadistic streak for creating a system that says if you donโ€™t believe the right way, you are going to burn alive in hell for eternity” and “Why should a GOD want me to be forever damned with Lucifer simply because I refused to believe.”

    Whenever we start pushing God into the dock, that is a point where our reasoning has gone off the rails!

    And, that is what is happening here, for there is a lot more to the story than the sort of unfortunately strawmanised, demonising and deeply polarised remarks just excerpted suggest.

    Perhaps we need to read Paul in Rom 1 – 2 a bit more carefully (and this, on all sides):

    Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people39 who suppress the truth by their40 unrighteousness,41 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them,42 because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes โ€“ his eternal power and divine nature โ€“ have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people43 are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts44 were darkened . . . .

    2:5 But because of your stubbornness12 and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when Godโ€™s righteous judgment is revealed!13

    2:6 He14 will reward15 each one according to his works:16 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, 2:8 but17 wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition18 and do not obey the truth but follow19 unrighteousness . . . .

    2:14 For whenever the Gentiles,26 who do not have the law, do by nature27 the things required by the law,28 these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 2:15 They29 show that the work of the law [i.e core morality, expressed in the principles of neighbour love] is written30 in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend31 them,32 2:16 on the day when God will judge33 the secrets of human hearts,34 according to my gospel35 through Christ Jesus. [NET Bible, with numbers for translation notes]

    a –> Paul is pretty explicit that the big problem is resenting and rebelling against the truth we do or should know then substituting what we do or should know is a lie, and that God frowns on this.

    b –> So the issue, first, cannot be that one is merely IGNORANT of relevant truth (especially as it is innate: “you unfair me”! we protest, testifying to the binding nature of moral truth).

    c –> Instead, it is that of rebelling against the truth we know and where it points, e.g the fact of consciousness and mindedness points to the Source of mind. (And likewise the orderly organised balance of the world and of life in it point to the author thereof.)

    d –> Likewise, our consciences crying out for justice — including when we would put God in the Dock and cry out against real or apparent evils — testify to the fact that we find ourselves morally obligated. This can only be grounded in a cosmos in which the ultimate reality is a Morally Just Creator so that good is reasonable and morally compelling as reasonable and fair, not arbitrary. Otherwise the is-ought gap swallows up the ought in the is.

    e –> But things get hotter. For in Ch 2 Paul takes in the man who does not know enough to know Jesus and the gospel, or who misunderstands it, contrasting him to the one who rejects truth he knows or should know and lives by evil in darkness:

    Rom 2:6 He [God] will reward each one according to his works: 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, 2:8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition18 and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness

    f –> Here, we first see the ordinary man who by light of conscience — and inevitably stumblingly so — penitently perseveres in the path of good and truth, based on what he knows of good and God, by dint of nature, prophets, wise teachers, philosophers, scripture or even the manifest presence and power of the gospel. (The attitude is instantly recognisable, and so is its opposite.)

    g –> The scripture is plain that to such God gives eternal life: >>Rom 2:6 He [God] will reward each one according to his works: 2:7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality >>

    h –> Very simple, but so very easy to lose sight of: God is fair and loving, so he will save anyone he can. If you walk in the truth and the right you know or should — important caveat! — know, penitently and persistently getting up when you err or stumble, God will receive you with open arms.

    i –> Such salvation is based on his lovingly and freely offered self-sacrifice by which he took our self-destroying sin into his own self and expiated its consequences and penalty. (The exchange is explicit in many cases, implicit in others [e.g Abraham, Melchizedek, Job, Moshe, David . . . many others down to today who may not have a clear access to a higher — much less, the highest — degree of truth or light ], but it is the basis for salvation and eternal life.)

    j –> But, not all turn to the good and walk in the path of the right and the truth, however stumblingly. Some — sadly — rebel even against the undeniable voice of mind and conscience. Others are wiling to follow any rhetoric that excuses them in sin and in untruth, some even going so far as to actively suppress the truth they know or should know; up to and including in the case of those who have heard the gospel and have effective access to the compelling evidence of its truth. [This includes the millions all around us and over the years who have met and come to know the real God in the face of Jesus and have had their lives transformed by the resulting release of resurrection power through the “great and precious promises” of the scriptures. (Advice: a little humble listening to people who however ill-educated and lacking in eloquence actually know God, would save many of us the highly educated a lot of grief here and in eternity.)]

    k –> For good reason, rebels against the truth and the right face a very different fate.

    l –> And, it is such who need to heed the stern warnings Paul also gives: >>2:8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness >>

    __________

    So, commentators and onlookers:

    1: what is the truth and the right that you know or should know?

    2: Are you seeking to turn to it and live by it, however much you stumble and must regret it and get up and try again?

    3: Or, are you resisting the truth and following evil, in rage against what you know you should do?

    That is the issue we must all face.

    Grace and peace to all

    D


  17. PS: on evidence on the gospel, you may wish to start serious investigations here [a prime source doc dating to 57 AD] and here [a current discussion by a leading scholar], following up by actually sitting down with the kind of serious Christians whose lives reflect the gospel’s supernatural life-transforming power at work.


  18. Holy WordPress!!

    Like moths to the flame !!

    ROFLMAO!!

    that was too easy ๐Ÿ™‚


  19. Onlookers:

    See what I mean?

    Technician,

    You need to get more serious about the truth you know or should know. Rom 2: 6 – 8 tells you why.

    Dis ting WAAY too serious for jesting and brushing aside, mon.

    G’day

    D


  20. Oh no Dick….

    It is you who make this life and take it too seriously…so seriously that people like you almost always zoom past the BASIC things in life that makes one happy.

    You HAVE to be right!
    No one can disagree with you without being labeled.
    Dick MUST have the final say and is THE authority on all things LIFE.

    NEWSFLASH!!

    Some of us who do not conform to your rules ( millions at last count) ARE happy in this life…..DEAL WITH IT!!

    You remind me of yardfowl, picking and scraping at every bit of scrap thrown out……you just cant help can you….that ego is going to kill you man!

    Lets just sit and wait now…..your sidekick cant be that far behind.

    ROFLMAO!!

    Laughter IS good for the soul.


  21. Technician:

    I do not know where you got the sort of strawman caricatures of me that you have put up, but they are wrong; seriously wrong.

    (And if the slanders put up against me by others elsewhere are what are leading you astray [.e.g Mr Boyne’s attempt to cover the error of covering implicit support for onstage dancehall culture lewdness by slandering Evangelicals, and then furhter slandering those who pointed out his basic errors, or those who have yet to face some basic facts about what pre-loading targets in alleged random search algorithms implies], I have already corrected those elsewhere in this blog, for your specific attention. Similarly, you know that I am correct in my description of two-point linear implosion design nukes, and what that implies since IAEA is concerned that the Iranians have been testing the design. Namely this is an opportunity for suicide nuke terrorism using suitcase nukes or footlocker nukes or backpack nukes. So, I think you need to look in the mirror when you project the attitude of being a know it all. FYI there are many things I do not know, such as the details of biochem, and I simply listen to those like GP — whom I now know to be a physician and med school lecturer — who do on that. You will note that my petrochems plant comparison is on a poster set up by the Int’ls union of biochem and molecular bio. I know about plants and design,and implications of information that is functionally specific and complex.)

    And, just above, I am pointing to an issue that you need to face, with your basic integrity on the line.

    THAT IS WHY I HAVE COUNSELLED YOU TO TAKE A SERIOUS LOOK.

    A word to the wise . . .

    G’day

    D


  22. The harsh critics of modern-day Christianity are justified in their assertions as to the machinations of a religion that has truly lost its way given almost 2000 years of subliminal indoctrination from the spirit of Antichrist which has been existent in the world since the days of JESUS*…

    My Catholic brothers including my dearly beloved Cousin Harcourt Blackett tend to get their “knickers” in a twist over this kind of scrutiny given the fact that the Catholic Church and especially the JESUIT* wing of the orthodoxy has been conceited, malevolent, capricious and down-right damnable in its practices for well over 400 years….moreover Church history which spanned 1260 years during the DARK AGES* from (538ad – 1798) where ROME* ruled with a rod of iron…

    If as a Christian, I cannot pin-point the failures of established religion with a degree of objectivity, censure and analysis – then who can?

    Too many good religious folks are blind, deaf and dumb to the insidious workings of the said Church within its long march to bring the world under its aegis once again.

    Even the modern Evangelical Church Movement is being led blindly down in the garden path as men accept Biblical teachings which are nefarious to say the least and down-right diabolical to say the worst… The sad irony being they read from the same BIBLE* but cannot agree on whether to have a “ham sandwich or tuna sandwich for lunch”…

    What is even more sad is that as one commentator said (I think my dear BRUV*Bush Tea) that men are still trying to explain the mysteries of God as “if they have some patent on God…”

    Another comment highlights the issue of “LOVE”* (or the lack thereof) amongst religionists – what an epiphany!!! Sorry, I didn’t mean to be facetious – that just slipped out!!!

    The issue is really because men do not love the truth and would rather believe a lie is the reason why our condition is so pathetic and for that reason and that alone is my we have such a hard time convincing men of the truth… God already knows who will be saved and who won’t but we take it upon ourselves to damn folks into Hell* forgetting that according Jewish mythology – there are 7 levels of HELL*… Which one do we relegate our brothers & sisters to?

    Again for the record, religion is NOT* salvation. Religion is man’s own witches brew – a alchemists’ concoction thrown together and shaken (not stirred) in the cauldrons of Hell by demons who have infiltrated the minds of men to lead the masses of sheep over a cliff…

    I know this maybe hard for some to swallow and God knows that I am not trying to rock the boat – (actually I am attempting to throw the “bloody” thing over)…

    Whatever the opinion on this issue – the debate will scupper on I’m sure with no consensus reached…

    In the end all men have to be fully persuaded for themselves because I sure can’t save a single soul!!!!


  23. Dick….I really could care less about what you know or dont.
    How many letters of the alphabet follow Gordon Mullings name has no interest whatsoever to me.

    You are yet to bring proof of the suitcase nukes in Iran…proof , not feelings..show us the proof of their existance…after all..the head honcho of their program under the Shah (who by the way started Irans Nuclear ambitions)taught you.
    I do not follow the other issues except one I previously highlighted, which because of my perception of you made sense ( blame me for my thoughts)
    I stand by what I say regardless of who sees me in another light, I think for myself. I dont know everything either, I am a network cabling /telephony technician/installer with no letters behind my name but I do have enough common sense to question.


  24. I am a “simple man” and feel comfortable in my simplicity, I therefore leave religion to those who know more about it than I do…Dr Georgie Porgie et al. My simplicity allows me to be silent, for I speak not of what I do not know, but I listen for I might hear a voice – through its examples set that I can follow…I am still listening.


  25. @ Anonymous, Anon, Voice of Reason and Yardbroom, Bush Tea, et al.

    Please, please, dont upset the religious “tryptch” of BU. Let them go where us simpletons refuse to tread.

    In the meantime, continue to enjoy your lives to the max. This is it. When you dead, you dead. There is nothing after.


  26. The Christian religion cannot at this time be of concern to me. Not so when Islam, or actors in the name of islam to whom I am but an infidel, has justified in themselves that I can be blown to bits with Allah’s blessing if I do not surrender to their dictates.
    As a practicing heathen, the christians have only warned me of eternal damnation after I physically die of natural causes, should I not repent and seek salvation while alive.

    The choice is a no-brainer for me. LOL!


  27. Isn’t it fascinating how scoffers, denyists, protagonists, atheists, naysayers and others surface like the LEVIATHAN* when a sound intellectual discussion on the Christian religion is given some resonance in contemporary social discourse forums…

    For the OTHERS* here is a link that should enlighten you a bit about your world….

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869614609770971945#


  28. Yes Terence, as you and others continue your internal christian wars, Islam continues to grow with the intent that no christian entity should exist.


  29. @Terence: “For the OTHERS* here is a link that should enlighten you a bit about your worldโ€ฆ.

    Did anyone else waste your time watching this carefully manufactured and controlled bullshit?

    There was no audience there… Other than those paid to be there (and they (read: the ugly blond) were involved with the production)…

    If you haven’t watched this, don’t waste your valuable time….


  30. @ CH

    ha ha ha. You actually watched? I never watch videos or follow any links in blogs from the religious pundits. Why it will be something, to boost their arguments, in which I have no interest.


  31. @Bro’ Terence, I could not concur more with you re the *Jesuits* and their sinister plan to counter the Reformation, etc, etc.

    However, I could not help but notice your general ‘sweep’ across Protestantism, notwithstanding the many ‘ills’ within it, I quietly suspect that you [may] have a subtle agenda here, in attacking Prostantism for a far more covert reason than you presently want to declare, hint… ‘Blue Law’ concept of your denomination… [maybe!). Just asking!


  32. David:

    I bear record that technician has elected to again violate my privacy.

    D


  33. Dicktionary…..are you stupid?!?

    What privacy what?!?

    Anyone with fingers knows who you are, bu your own making too.BU is not the only place that you blog, my neighbor knows you even. What will David do…ban me? You must really think I am one one your students and BU is your class room.Dont make me laugh man, grow up and suck in that ego. You want to be famous and anonymous at the same time….stupse.
    You have really outdone yourself here man. This is NOT your blog and you are well known to the internet……deal with it…..pompous fool!!
    The record IS there to show that anyone reading BU knows who you are…violate your privacy my ass!!


  34. Onlookers:

    Observe how studiously, now that some pretty harsh shut-up rhetoric has been answered — cf. point 2 above, here, after some balancing words were made on the sett heme for the thread — step by step through the examination of foundational Christian writings and related key worldview and responsibility- to- truth issues, we see scant signs of serious examination of the question of the truth and the right that we may follow it.

    That should tell us a lot — and very little of it happy news — about the underlying attitudes and intents behind the disparaging rhetoric, and it underscores the force of the warning in the linked.

    For it is plain that we have a duty to seek and to live by the truth we know or should know.

    D

    PS: Technician, above, shows his saddening irresponsibility, not only by again violating my privacy, but by making an assertion that slanderously fails to acknowledge that from the very first point of remarking on the IAEA’s concerns on Iran’s bomb making experiments — cf point 5 on my post in the Muslim Mafia thread Nov 9 [over a month ago now . . . ] here — the source, an article in that notorious right wing rag — NOT! — the UK Guardian has been consistently cited or summarised and/or linked. And since I know enough to understand what sort of bombs would come out of such a two detonation point implosion design [with possible fusion boosting . . . takes it up to the 1 – 10 K ton TNT equivalent class, i.e Hiroshima level], I raised the issue of suitcase suicide nukes, and of small tac nuke warheads for missiles. The relevant paragraphs, just for the record, are:

    The UN’s nuclear watchdog has asked Iran to explain evidence suggesting that Iranian scientists have experimented with an advanced nuclear warhead design, the Guardian has learned.

    The very existence of the technology, known as a “two-point implosion” device, is officially secret in both the US and Britain [but is explained in places like Wiki for those interested . . . !], but according to previously unpublished documentation in a dossier compiled by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design. The development was today described by nuclear experts as “breathtaking” and has added urgency to the effort to find a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear crisis.

    The sophisticated technology, once mastered, allows for the production of smaller and simpler warheads than older models. It reduces the diameter of a warhead and makes it easier to put a nuclear warhead on a missile. [I add: It is also a base for a suitcase or backpack or footlocker detonation type nuke.]

    Documentation referring to experiments testing a two-point detonation design are part of the evidence of nuclear weaponisation gathered by the IAEA and presented to Iran for its response.


  35. Onlookers:

    Kindly note the blatant incivility and disrespect for others and their privacy that Technician now so clearly manifests.

    (Thankfully, he and others of like ilk are in no position to play “outing” games with me that cause career harm. What he can do is cause me some unwelcome email spam surges. As I have explained more than once to those who would imagine that if they can with searching learn an identity, they can plaster it on any handy forum with slanders against the person so such viral lies can propagate far and wide; as happened withthe Boyne slanders inthe rpevious thread: kindly note onlookers, that the FGleaner had to correct the record by publishing a corrective, and that the accusations that would push Evangelicals into the same boat with the Taliban, were about Christian objections to public lewdness by Dancehall singers like Lady Saw — who with others ended up before the courts for lewd conduct That should tell us a lot, and none of it any good.)

    Technician, surely you can do a lot better than that.

    G’day

    D


  36. After reading through all that BS above…where is the smoking gun because that is the only way to justify a strike ( which is what all this posturing is about)

    You really think the world wants another war based on fear and lies or deceit?

    Show us the suit case , not the ‘probability’ of one. Is this so hard for you to do…stupse.

    All I see is words like ‘evidence suggesting.’
    ..’Iranian scientists may have tested high-explosive components of the design.
    What MAY..did they or not?

    You really think people so stupid that they cant see you and others of your ilk’s agenda here?
    Education really aint common sense and when soaked in religion it is a dangerous thing.


  37. This was posted on BU..

    Rasputin // November 14, 2009 at 6:45 PM

    For those of you still replying to Dictionary (aka kairosfocus, aka Gordon Mullings), I suggest you take a look at his ability to produce prodigious nonsense at places like Uncommon Descent. He never admits error, even when his nose is rubbed in it, and never, ever stops posting. Pat him on the head like a good little bot and save your intellectual energy for a worthwhile discussion partner.


  38. This is the article by Mr.Boyne that I happen to agree with.

    Religious threat to freedom
    published: Sunday | October 15, 2006

    Ian Boyne, Contributor

    Many persons have been expressing genuine worry for my life now that I have taken a strong stand against Islamic fanaticism, with some Christians saying that they are praying for my safety. But some Christians have also been offended by what they see as my lumping together Christian fundamentalists with Islamic fundamentalists.

    There is no moral equivalence between the two, they insist. And, of course, I never suggested that. But what I have maintained is that the Christians are also prone to bigotry, intolerance and the desire to impose their will on others just as the Islamic militants. The Christians have been more restrained in establishing their Kingdom of God on earth not because that desire has extinguished among them but because they live in secular states which have long disposed of the concept of the Divine Right of Kings and other theocratic notions.

    Yet have no doubt that there are strong currents of theocracy among Christians, not the least among groups like the Moral Majority and other right-wing Christian groups in the United States. There is also a militant, activist group of Christians in America and other places who believe that secularism has too much of a hold over people and that it is time that the disciples of Christ rise up and establish the kingdom, taking back from the devil what he has stolen.

    They are not willing to use violence as the Islamic militants and jihadists, but in their Christian hearts burns the same passion for righteousness and divine justice that well up in the hearts of the Wahabists. Some Christians have been saying on a website that I have been distorting history by ascribing to secularism the birth of the concept of freedom when that glory should rightly go to Christianity.

    Missing the point

    The Christians have missed the point I have made. The issue is not whether, as the people on the Kairos website point out, the concept of personal freedom came from early Christians or from Christian philosophy. Professor Orlando Patterson has, indeed, demonstrated in his book Freedom that Pauline Christianity did play a pivotal role in establishing the concept of personal and individual freedom. But Gordon Mullings, well-meaning but with a surfeit of zeal over knowledge, implies that there is a necessary conflation between theology and action.

    The fact that Christian theology or philosophy posits something does not automatically translate into Christian practice. How do Gordon Mullings, Shirley Richards et al explain the fact that the Christian Church โ€“ for thatโ€™s what it was, not some fringe group โ€“ carried out such dastardly acts in the Middle Ages? How do they explain the Crusades, the forcible Christianisation of nations, the brutal imposition of sectarian rule over people? Merely dismissing the dominant church as โ€œthe Biblically illiterate Christianity of the Middle Agesโ€ (as Mullings does) is disingenuous and would leave the historically challenged with the view that one was referring to some fringe group in the Middle Ages.

    Succumbing to the normal Protestant temptation โ€“ historical amnesia โ€“ Mullings glorifies โ€œthe world that resulted from having the Reformation sola scriptura principleโ€ in putting the Bible in the hands of the ordinary man: liberation.โ€ Mullings does not mention โ€“ or does he not know? โ€“ that Luther and the early Reformers eventually became some of the biggest persecutors of other Christians who did not follow their particular version of Christianity. Luther spoke in the most contemptuous and vehement ways about his opponents, displaying a spirit of intolerance at the liberty exercised by others who had been reading the Bible differently. The fact is that despite the fact that the Bible does place โ€“ from Old to New Testament โ€“ a strong emphasis on individual liberty, if secular society did not place as strong an emphasis on pluralism and democracy, there are Christians, not just on the fringe, who would seek to establish their version of Godโ€™s rule on the rest of us. The desire to establish a theocratic system is not just limited to evil Middle Ages Christians.

    If the secularists and the forces of democracy were not as strong in America, people like Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and James Dobson would set up a Fundamentalist Christian state in America that would suppress the freedoms of non-Christians. They read the same Bible which Gordon Mullings, Shirley Richards and others read as giving the blueprint for individual liberty, respect for individual conscience etc., but those passages would all be interpreted to suit their theocratic designs.

    Narrow-mindedness

    We must simply face up to the dangers and pitfalls of the fundamentalist mindset. This is not to suggest that fundamentalism is evil or even necessarily misguided. But it is to acknowledge that it is usually associated with narrow-mindedness, bigotry, intolerance and sometimes mean-spiritedness. And often with a persecution complex.

    Shirley Richards is right that the struggle of some Christians against the dominant church and for respect for individual conscience was crucial in the struggle for freedom in the West. But remember, the Bible has been used by both the oppressor and the oppressed for their causes. Because of the pliable nature of the Bible -or the Bibleโ€™s being used that way โ€“ it must be admitted by Christians freely that fellow believers are not immune to the temptation to establish a Christian state.

    Would it be okay for a Christian Prime Minster to ban horseracing, the lotto and carnival on Sunday even if the majority population has no problem with such practices? I am a firm believer in pluralism and I believe that a secular state better protects freedom of conscience than any religious state. Whenever people hold totalist views-such as Marxism, Salafism, Christian Fundamentalism, Mormonism, old-style conservative Catholicism โ€“ there is always the temptation to minimise the freedom of people who are outside that ideology.

    Castro still refuses to allow his people to hear broadcasts emanating from the United States; still disallows their free subscriptions to Western magazines and wonโ€™t allow people absolute freedom to travel because he has a totalitarian ideology which assures him that scientific socialism is right and competing ideologies are non-scientific and, therefore, wrong.

    Various Muslim Sheikhs hold to their rigid interpretation of the Koran and if they could get political power from the secularists who hold power in certain Muslim societies, they world impose their narrow view on the populace.

    Sunnis have no problem imposing their rule on Shias and vice-versa.

    Secularist impulses

    Christians might have been in the forefront of early struggles to establish freedom, and the Protestant Reformation was certainly a catalyst but we cannot underplay the significance of secularist impulses in cementing the culture of freedom and democracy.

    And those who write and talk glibly about Christians being necessarily worlds apart from the Muslims in terms of behaviour and ideology must remember that the history of Islam is not uniformly one of violence and mayhem. We must not do a disservice to history and truth by caricaturing Islam as being just coterminous with violence, terror and intolerance.

    In his book What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response (2002), the esteem historian Bernard Lewis reminds of the contributions of Islam to Western civilisation.

    โ€œFor many centuries the world of Islam was in the forefront of human civilisation and achievement. In the Muslimsโ€™ own perception, Islam was, indeed, coterminous with civilisationโ€ฆIt had achieved the highest level so far in human history in the arts and science of civilisation โ€ฆ In most of the arts and sciences of civilisation, medieval Europe was a pupil and in a sense a dependent on the Islamic world, relying on Arabic versions even for many otherwise unknown Greek texts.โ€

    This is not known to many persons who only know about the terrorist actions and barbaric intolerance of rable rousers on the Arab streets-not representing all Muslims today.

    A fascinating book which is a must-read for those ignorant of the Islamic contribution to Western civilisation and Western scholarship is Professor Richard Rubensteinโ€™s 2003 book Aristotleโ€™s Children: How Christians, Muslims and Jews Rediscovered Ancient Wisdom and Illuminated the Dark Ages.

    Says Rubenstein: โ€œAristotleโ€™s work, like the rest of Greek culture, had been lost in the centuries after the fall of Rome when the Greek language was forgotten. But in the Muslim world, the wisdom of the Greeks was never lost and contributed to the flowering of Islamic culture.

    Then in the twelfth century in Toledo, Spain, groups of Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars collaborated on translating the ancient classics; and ideas long forgotten galvanised Europe, turning Western thinking away from the supernatural world and toward the world of natureโ€.

    Religions are capable of transforming themselves or of being corrupted by practitioners or adherents. In religion there is a vast difference between the ideal and the real. So making the point about what the ideology of Christianity advocates and the proclivities of living breathing Christians is not one and the same thing.


  39. @All…

    For the record…

    Even the *great* US of A is unable to produce a “suit-case” (read: human carried) nuclear device able to deliver more than about 200 tons (0.2 kilotons). And even that isn’t for certain…

    Iran hasn’t even tested a single device yet.

    North Korea have, and the results were less then impressive.

    The best the “rogue” states could do is produce a “dirty bomb”. That is, a non-nuclear explosion spreading nuclear material around.

    But then, so could anyone with enough time, a great deal of matches, and a great many old “glow-in-the-dark” watches….


  40. ..and this is the other post where I followed up om what Rasputin had to say.

    Tell me Dictionary, where did you get the ignorance about Lady Saw et al?

    Could it be that you ,the Great Dictionary, made a mistake??


  41. link did not post….here it is

    http://www.positiveliberty.com/2006/09/romans-13.html

    Dont want to miss my train…Good night.


  42. David:

    Sigh.

    Technician has resorted to further propagating slander, in an clear intent to side track the thread into strawman attacks soaked with ad hominems ignited to poison and polarise rthe atmosphere.

    This is sad.

    On right of reply, however I must give a corrective to the core issues.

    First on the roots of modern liberty that Mr Boyne does not understand, cf here.

    (And onlookers, if one has easy access to the truth but sets out to studiously ignore or suppress or slander it, that is a serious sign. And such behaviour is precisely an illustration of the point about the real problem we have with God, above.)

    Second, I again must excerpt the previously linked corrective on the slander that Christians are like the Taliban, in the context of objections to Dancheall culture lewdness:

    ______________

    >>THIS, Technician, was what was at stake, and I think you will see why Mr Boyneโ€™s rhetoric as you cited above was utterly inexcusable, and should not be used by any decent person:

    ++++++++++++++

    On โ€œTheocracy,โ€ 12: Rom 1 โ€“ 2 & 13, liberty and the public vs. private spheres

    . . . . We sometimes refer to certain parts of our bodies as โ€œprivate,โ€ and as a rule will refuse to put these parts of our bodies on public display, through a sense of shame, or a commitment to modesty, or in some cases a fear of possible legal consequences.

    At the same time, the very existence of pornography, peeping toms, flashers, utterly immodest dress, indecent entertainment acts, date rape and prostitution tells us that there are those who take inappropriate pleasure or profit from the breaching of this barrier โ€” often trying to make the claim that they are championing โ€œlibertyโ€ as they do so. (In fact, we need to distinguish between liberty on the one hand, and licence, libertinism and amorality [often disguised as “tolerance” and “diversity”] on the other. For, as Rom 13:8 โ€“ 10 reminds us, neighbour-love does no harm. )

    Why, then, do we instinctively draw a line between the public and the private, and why is there a clash between shame and pleasure over its breach?

    . . . .

    For instance, we can observe that while some people will wear provocatively immodest clothing that suggests, presents and hints at their private parts, passions and sexual availability โ€” and will champion publicly funded or displayed artwork that is far more prurient than that โ€” the same people would as a rule be utterly embarrassed to be caught helplessly naked in the middle of a major traffic intersection.

    [In case the reader thinks this is a mere hypothetical, s/he might wish to consider the case of the publicly funded and controversial Redemption Song nude statue group at the corner of Oxford Road and Knutsford Boulevard in New Kingston, Jamaica; which is so posed as to put the exaggerated male and female pubic regions at the eye-level of passersby. (Note how — ever so tellingly! — one of the dismissers of moral concern has to ask passersby to “elevate their eyes to the expression of spiritual yearning and hope,” as noted here in a Florida newspaper report. That means that something that is usually regarded as intensely private, and in much larger than life size, has been put at eye-level and it obviously is not the upturned “spiritual” faces!) Moreover, it is not without relevance to note that: (1) this site was precisely the location of a public protest against the institution of Playboy porn channel Cable TV-sponsored mass nude weddings at Hedonism III in February 2001, and (2) in the Emancipation Park for which the statues were commissioned, at opening, not one historical monument to the history of emancipation, nor the Biblically rooted motivations of many of Jamaica’s heroes or ideal was to be found. Indeed, (3) major national symbols such as the Pledge, Motto, Coat of Arms, and Anthem were conspicuously absent. Not even the incorrect date of emancipation — 1838, much less the correct date — 1834, was to be found.]

    Or, getting back to the more sordid parts of our history raised by slavery, even the most immodest people would find themselves utterly humiliated to be put up, more or less naked, on an auction block and sexually inspected and commented on by interested buyers and bystanders as part of the โ€œtomato-pinchingโ€ before being auctioned off to the highest bidder.

    In short, there is an obvious and vast, intuitively recognised difference between what is suitable for the privacy of the God-blessed marital bedroom or the doctorโ€™s office, and what is appropriate for the public context โ€” however much some may wish to play around with the borderline. Selective hyperskepticism about this, therefore only reveals an intellectually and morally indefensible agenda at work.

    The distinction between the public and the private spheres, clearly, also fulfills some very important protective โ€” and even liberating โ€” social functions:

    First, our children need a safe public space in which they can be appropriately stimulated and educated without fear of exposure to images, ideas, agendas and situations that they are neither mature enough to handle well, nor capable of defending themselves from.

    Second, through institutionalising modesty, in part through recognising, protecting (and sometimes subsidising) marriage and the family, society is able to promote the healthy rearing of the next generation, helping to preserve itself.

    Third, in light of the classic observation that men in particular are prone to leave a trail of havoc across a community through abusing physical, social and sexual prowess โ€” witness the fact that rape is as a rule a crime committed by men โ€” societies require several key institutional walls of protection.

    Fourth, since it is now common to encounter the notion that activist judges or legislatures can freely and safely decree at will that marriage needs not be reflective of the natural difference between men and women, it must be noted that not only is the heterosexual bond a basis for procreation and sound child nurture, but that the associated denigration of the limits of nature is not only physically unhealthy but also is fraught with implications for the fabric of protection of children in the community based on the public/private distinction.

    Fifth, we must never forget that liberty always has proper limits: my right implies your duty, given the basic fact that we are equals in nature under God, and so we have mutual obligations under the principle that neighbour-love does no harm. Nor, are we justified to assume or assert without further proof that lawful restrictions imposed by legitimate authorities that do not suit our preferences on public morality are to be derided and dismissed as oppressive impositions of โ€œcensorship,โ€ without specific and good reason for such a conclusion.

    All of this speaks to a common voice of conscience-guided reason that whispers within, echoing, in turn, some telling but sometimes unwelcome insights from the Apostle Paulโ€™s Epistle to the Romans, a now often unacknowledged foundational work for Western Culture as we know it:

    Rom 1:20 . . . since the creation of the world Godโ€™s invisible qualitiesโ€“his eternal power and divine natureโ€“have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse . . . .

    RO 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know Godโ€™s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them . . . .

    2:14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the [written OT] law, do by nature things required by the law . . . 15 . . . they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

    In short, there is an intuitively recognised core of conscience-guided reason and awareness of the creation-based, morally conditioned nature of reality that leads us to God; if we would but listen. Sadly, we are instead tempted to suppress this as it is often inconvenient to our desired agendas, profits and pleasures. If we do so, we have no excuse and find ourselves victims of darkened understandings, benumbed consciences and out-of-control, sometimes perverted passions โ€” leading to massive social disruption and disintegration. In turn, when anarchy reaches a critical point, as Germany in the 1930s showed convincingly, the public will accept tyranny on the hope that it will restore order. In short, once we ignore the moral context of liberty, it becomes suicidally self-destructive.

    So, in fact, the sort of inconsistency on the moral issue of modesty just highlighted is quite revealing on our core moral challenge: our willful, sinful alienation from our Creator. Such a rebellion easily leads us to proclaim that our bondages are our liberties and also to refuse to accept โ€” especially when it cuts across our profits or pleasures โ€” that it is a core criterion of sustainable liberty that we should we should do no harm to our neighbours. (Thus, in effect, we have now arrived at a core issue connected to our need to repent in light of the credibility of the Gospel; but that is a side-point relative to our current focus.)

    So now, we are in an excellent position to evaluate and respond to the sort of comment that Mr Boyne recently made, in portraying those he insists on smearing as โ€œfundamentalistsโ€ in the following light:

    BOYNE: In Jamaica you encounter some mindless Christian fundamentalists who, if they had their way, would ban certain television programmes, certain movies and certain books and would even seek to impose dress-length standards on our women to fight the scourge of dancehall fashions. Donโ€™t think itโ€™s just the Taliban who has this kind of mentality. Talk to your fundamentalist, Bible-thumping neighbour and see how open-minded he or she really is.

    First we observe the warning-sign of dismissive rhetoric and assertion of irresponsible [im]moral equivalency: mindless Bible-thumping fundamentalists more or less at the same moral level as the fanatical and oppressive Taliban of Afghanistan โ€” as if the differences between Jamaican evangelicals and the like and the Taliban are not obvious, material and even vast. But more on the point, in light of the issue of the importance of distinguishing the public/private spheres and the issue of appropriate behaviour in the public sphere, issues of modesty are not automatically to be equated to censorship and oppression.

    Indeed, on the dance hall behaviour question, I once recall a case where videos of the audience at a public dancehall event were repeatedly shown for several days on my local access cable tv channel in Jamaica, at all hours of day and night.

    My wife drew my attention to it, and late one evening I took time to watch; only, to see an informal lewdness contest by a circle of women, โ€œwonโ€ by one who shocked her companions by . . . When I complained to the management of the company, at first they were skeptical of my perceived attitude of โ€œcensorship,โ€ but when I then explained in a bit more details than I will here, they at once indicated that this was unauthorised, and that they would have to act to see to it that such lewd and illegal public displays would never happen again on their channel. [Note how, in attempting to “justify” the mass nude weddings at Hedonism III, another commentator corroborates these observations here. Cf my objection to the now annual nude weddings event at the time it was started, here. I have now added a copy of this post to that page.]

    Plainly, given what is at stake at length, serious moral concern to defend public morality in the face of a subculture that evidently encourages public misbehaviour and associated immodest patterns of dress โ€” is plainly warranted. [Recall here the case of Lady Saw and why she became controversial for lewd behaviour and indecent lyrics, especially what the Jamaica Observer calls “her signature crotch patting” which in the linked case led up to her “calling dancer Ice on stage who engaged a female patron in dry-humping.”] So, while we indeed need to be careful of the line between liberty and censorship, it is plain that obscenity has long been recognised as objectionable and actionable under law, for excellent reason. Similarly, morally concerned people โ€” and this, classically, includes Bible-believing Christians โ€” are well within their rights to object to and boycott immodest public [or even on-private-property “entertainment”] behaviour, speech, broadcasts, dress and yes even television programming that fall far short of legally actionable obscenity.

    In such a context, we are equally well within our rights to ask pointed questions on the underlying attitudes and motivation of very well informed public figures such as Mr Boyne, who โ€” without adequately reckoning with serious concerns and issues such as the above โ€” try to push those who raise such concerns into the same boat as Islamist terrorists and oppressors.

    For, that sounds a lot like bigotry and stirring up of misunderstanding, leading to unjustified resentment and hostility to me. For shame!

    ++++++++++

    Technician, you owe me and all decent people whom you misled by citing an utterly indefensible attack as though it was the last word, an apology. >>
    ______________

    Onlookers, it is sad to have to defend oneself from such an out of control slanderous personal attack.

    D


  43. D,

    Explain how “limited strikes” mitigate the threat from “suitcase nukes”?

    Should the US make a “limited strike” against Iran and Amadinejad wont have the to steal another election.

    (Be a christian and think of others and keep your posts to a ‘polite’ size)


  44. Footnote: Mr Halshall,

    Maybe you would want to read here to see what fusion boost can do to a 2-point implosion warhead; precisely as I described. Excerpting:

    The smallest possible bomb-like object would be a single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions. An unreflected spherical alpha-phase critical mass of Pu-239 weighs 10.5 kg and is 10.1 cm across.

    A single critical mass cannot cause an explosion however since it does not cause fission multiplication, somewhat more than a critical mass is required for that. But it does not take much more than a single critical mass to cause significant explosions. As little an excess as 10% (1.1 critical masses) can produce explosions of 10-20 tons. This low yield seems trivial compared to weapons with yields in the kilotons or megatons, but it is actually far more dangerous than conventional explosives of equivalent yield due to the intense radiation emitted. A 20 ton fission explosion, for example, produces a very dangerous 500 rem radiation exposure at 400 meters from burst point, and a 100% lethal 1350 rem exposure at 300 meters. A yield of 10-20 tons is also equal to the yield of the lowest yield nuclear warhead ever deployed by the US — the W-54 used in the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle.

    A mere 1.2 critical masses can produce explosive yield of 100 tons, and 1.35 critical masses can reach 250 tons. At this point a nation with sophisticated weapons technology can employ fusion boosting to raise the yield well into the kiloton range without requiring additional fissile material . . .

    In short all you have succeeded in doing is documenting that you have not done your homework carefully enough.


  45. As intelligent beings we should learn from mistakes. We have debated long enough on BU to have established some ground rules to take the debate to another level. If we can’t do this how can we be described as intelligent?


  46. Finally for now:

    Rasputin, sadly, is simply a cross-threading anonymous slanderer.

    As I noted in the previous thread in response to his attempt to spread a dismissive slander — something which Technician had immediate access to (i.e the issues of responsibility to the truth are right there on the surface as I discussed earlier today]:

    ________________

    >> My attention was drawn to remarks above by Rasputin, who has engaged me elsewhere in brief.

    Observe, therefore, that both here and elsewhere he has not documented, just smeared and condescendingly dismissed.

    Nor has he engaged the matter in the main above on the only grounds relevant to sound conclusions on the matters in this thread; the material facts and reasoning relative to these.

    So, think about what the actual pattern above shows on where the balance on the merits lies.

    D

    PS: There was indeed a case where there was a long exchange over months, on a semi-technical issue where I was held by many opponents to be stubborn on error, in pointing out the ways that Dawkinsโ€™ Weasel program worked or could work. The recent thread here shows that I was in fact right all along on the main issue, now that he credible original code used for Dawkinsโ€™ Weasel has emerged. (As for the issue that was recently raised, I still find it odd how disputants on the other side try to insist that what was called implicit latching was not real, since it was actually demonstrated months ago once we had Atomโ€™s adjustable Weasel to work with!) And, Rasputin still has not accounted for the origin of functionally specific, complex information beyond say 1000 bits as a threshold of โ€œbeyond the reasonable reach of chance + necessity alone in the observed universeโ€ โ€” including the origin of the bioinformation of cellular life and of major body plans. Intelligence is the only observed source of such FSCI, and I and others are entitled to take it as a credible empirical signature of such. >>

    ____________

    Onlookers

    All of this is sad, but it is showing the force of the concerns on one’s spiritual conditions that I had to point out earlier today.

    You will note a conspicuous silence on the issues on the merits, but a willful and sustained attempt to attack the messenger bearing an unwelcome message.

    That should tell us a lot about what is really going on.

    So, let us keep our eyes on the ball.

    D


  47. @Dictionary… Bullshit.

    If it was so easy, everyone would be doing it.

    What you fail to admit (or perhaps, understand) is that creating the spherical implosion around the “single critical mass of plutonium (or U-233) at maximum density under normal conditions” using high explosives and precisely timed triggers is a non-trivial problem.

    Let’s ignore the purity requirements of the fission (not fusion) material, or the size and weight of the high-explosives….


  48. @Technician, Every chance you get to slander Dictionary, is used to ‘disguise’ the fact, that you CANNOT offer ANY objective, rational, refutation to ANY of his sound, well-reasoned, factually based arguments; so what do YOU DO, nothing but childish retort, nothing of ANY substance, is this right?

    It would be so much better, as many others do, when they DON’T know or understand the subject matter, to try and learn, ask meaningful questions, rather than ATTACKING the MESSENGER, because you are unable to deal coherently with his MESSAGE!

    Is this too much to ask? I think not, as it is the mature, reasonble way it should be dealt with!


  49. Ah..I see that Robin has joined the party….true to form!

    I posted above to show that Dictionary IS known to people on the net and it was not me who ‘outed ‘ him.

    I then posted the passage that I agree with, which is MY right whether it is right or wrong in others eyes.

    In all of Dicks post, I am yet to see PROOF that the suit case nuke he speaks of exists. All we read are suppositions and maybes. Does this justify Strikes on another country?
    is the world ready for another war based on fear-mongering rather that facts.
    Rather than show us the PROOF, Dick goes on and on with pure BS.
    I may not be able to post those long lectures as that is not my forte but Lets get to the point..There is NO PROOF that these devices exist.
    So who is misleading who???
    An apology??…..grow up man…it will be a cold day in your version of hell before I bow to you.
    You think too highly of yourself man.


  50. @ Zoe..

    Where do I slander Dick every chance I get?

    As a ‘christian’ you should know lying is a sin.

    This is the first in a long time that I even responded to one of his posts and I did because of lack of proof in what he is implying.
    You should take your own advice and stop regurgitating everything that Dick says and come with some original thought. You are too quick to jump on the bandwagon like some star crazed groupie.

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