|
Author
|
Topic: WAS THE UNABOMBER CORRECT?
|
|
|
booger
TOO BIG TO FAIL
Member # 3602
|
posted June 25, 2013 12:50 PM
I agree with him. Technology in my business has definitely made things better, to a degree. In banking, should you want to know what checks are clearing your account when you wake up at 3 am, you can check on that.
With that said, you always have bad people that figure out how to exploit anything digital. When the ‘bad people’ are determined to be your own US government, it makes things worse.
I simply do not trust any governmental agency looking at any of my personal information. I am not naïve enough to think it wasn’t happening, but now that I know for sure, it really scares the hell out of me.
I agree with his premise that it is keeping people from thinking for themselves…kind of reminds me of the commercial for Allstate…it has to be true if it is on the internet.
There is a generation of people that have no idea how to communicate by looking someone in the eye and visiting with them. If you take away their texting ability and email capability, I believe they would be reduced to slobbering, jellied masses lying in the corner.
In reality, I would love to return to the days when people took the time to sit down to a meal together, talked on rotary dial telephones, and could walk down the street and see people without their damn faces and thumbs glued to a frickin’ phone.
--------------------
If we ever forget we are one Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under--Ronald Reagan
Posts: 911 | From: Bob Dole Country | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
32below
Knows what it's all about
Member # 2075
|
posted June 25, 2013 06:11 PM
Them old rotary phones was sometimes on a party line. No secrets there. If you had news to spread all you had to do was make one phone call. The next day everyone in that corner of the county knew about it.
Posts: 100 | From: SW Kansas | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank
CAN START A FIRE WITH A BUCK KNIFE AND A ROCK
Member # 6
|
posted July 04, 2013 10:02 AM
Im my opinion technology, in and of itself, is a good thing. The problem is how that technology is potentially abused.
Take the recent revelations of the US government recording every email and phone call. The fact that this giant database exists is not a problem, in and of itself. The problem comes about when someone uses this data.
Who has access to it? Why do they want access to the data? How will the data be used?
This is where the problem resides. For example: If I had access to the data I might use it against Liberals, Jews, Christians, Blacks, Whites, Orientals, Lutherans. Catholics, or whomever I didn't like.
The only way to prevent this kind of abuse is to make it law that this data can never exist in the first place.
It all brings me back to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers who so well understood human nature that they wrote a constitution to address the failings of human nature. This is why the Constitution is a timeless document applicable thruought the ages.
America was created by Protestants wishing to escape religious persecution by Catholics in Europe. How would history have been different if one side or the other had a modern database on all communications? Targeted killing would be a snap and any "movement" could be killed in the cradle.
The Founding Fathers well understood the treachery behind the religious wars in Europe so designed their constitution to protect themselves from anyone or any group that would deny them the practice of their religion.
To that end I present the following article:
Why were many of the founding fathers Deists?
Many rank and file Christians believe the Bible is a direct communication from God to man. I believed this for most of my life. Once it is proven to our God-given reason that the Bible is strictly a man-made collection of mythology the mind loses yet another shackle of "revelation" and is soon on its way to full freedom and progress.
The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century.
The Roman Emperor Constantine the Great (274-337 CE), who was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity (on his death bed it is said), needed a single canon to be agreed upon by the Christian leaders to help him unify the remains of the Roman Empire. The old Roman Empire had been defeated by the Germanic invasions from the north. The old Rome had been destroyed. These conquerors were disparagingly called “Pagans” by the jews. “A way must be found to control them”.
Until this time the various Christian leaders could not decide which books would be considered "holy" and thus become "the word of God" and which ones would be excluded and not become the word of God.
Emperor Constantine, a conquering pagan and who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action - MONEY! He offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the word of God into existence.
The Church leaders didn't finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine!
The first Christian Bible was commissioned, paid for, inspected and approved by a pagan emperor for use by the Christians.
In the landmark work by H.G. Wells, The Outline of History, Vol. I, pages 462-463, we read, "It (the Council of Nicaea) marks the definite entry upon the stage of human affairs of the Christian Church and of Christianity as it is generally understood in the world today. It marks the exact definition of Christian teachings of the Nicene Creed, a creed voted upon as the word of God by men.
Constantine ordered and financed 50 parchment copies of the new "holy scriptures." It seems with the financial element added to the picture, the Church fathers were able to overcome their differences and finally agree which "holy" books would stay and which would go.
Compare the man-made origins of Christianity and its various dogmas to the simplicity of Deism. Deism is belief in God based only on reason and the Creation itself. It makes no claim to false "revelations" as all of the "revealed" religions like islam, judaism, and christianity do. To Deists, proof of the Designer is in the design (His creation).
To quote Thomas Paine, "Were man impressed as fully and as strongly as he ought to be with the belief of a God, his moral life would be regulated by the force of that belief; he would stand in awe of God and of himself, and would not do the thing that could not be concealed from either. To give this belief the full opportunity of force, it is necessary that it acts alone.
This is Deism. But when, according to the Christian Trinitarian scheme, one part of God is represented by a dying man, and another part, called the Holy Ghost, by a flying pigeon, it is impossible that belief can attach itself to such wild conceits. . . .
"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing.
"Instead then of studying theology, as is now done out of the Bible and Testament, the meanings of which books are always controverted and the authenticity of which is disproved, it is necessary that we refer to the Bible of the Creation. The principles we discover there are eternal and of divine origin; they are the foundation of all the science that exists in the world, and must be the foundation of theology.
"We can know God only through His works. We cannot have a conception of any one attribute but by following some principle that leads to it. We have only a confused idea of His power, if we have not the means of comprehending something of its immensity. We can have no idea of His wisdom, but by knowing the order and manner in which it acts. The principles of science lead to this knowledge; for the Creator of man is the Creator of science, and it is through that medium that man can see God, as it were, face to face."
On May 12, 1797 while living in Paris, France Tom Paine wrote the following letter to a Christian friend who was trying to convert Paine to Christianity. Paine's response fits perfectly with this page regarding the origins of the Bible.
"In your letter of the twentieth of March, you give me several quotations from the Bible, which you call the Word of God, to show me that my opinions on religion are wrong, and I could give you as many, from the same book to show that yours are not right; consequently, then, the Bible decides nothing, because it decides any way, and every way, one chooses to make it.
"But by what authority do you call the Bible the Word of God? for this is the first point to be settled. It is not your calling it so that makes it so, any more than the Muslims calling the Koran the Word of God makes the Koran to be so.
The Popish Councils of Nice and Laodicea, about 350 years after the time the person called Jesus Christ is said to have lived, voted the books that now compose what is called the New Testament to be the Word of God. This was done by yeas and nays, as we now vote a law.
"The Pharisees of the second temple, after the Jews returned from captivity in Babylon, did the same by the books that now compose the Old Testament, and this is all the authority there is, which to me is no authority at all. I am as capable of judging for myself as they were, and I think more so, because, as they made a living by their religion, they had a self-interest in the vote they gave.
"You may have an opinion that a man is inspired, but you cannot prove it, nor can you have any proof of it yourself, because you cannot see into his mind in order to know how he comes by his thoughts; and the same is the case with the word revelation. There can be no evidence of such a thing, for you can no more prove revelation than you can prove what another man dreams of, neither can he prove it himself. (Read the book "The Age of Reason to fully understand what is meant by the above).
"It is often said in the Bible that God spake unto Moses, but how do you know that God spake unto Moses? Because, you will say, the Bible says so. The Koran says, that God spake unto Mahomet, do you believe that too?
"Why not? Because, you will say, you do not believe it; and so because you do, and because you don't is all the reason you can give for believing or disbelieving except that you will say that Mahomet was an impostor. And how do you know Moses was not an impostor?
"For my own part, I believe that all are impostors who pretend to hold verbal communication with the Deity. This is the way by which the world has been imposed upon; but if you think otherwise you have the same right to your opinion that I have to mine, and must answer for it in the same manner. But all this does not settle the point, whether the Bible be the Word of God, or not.
It is therefore necessary to go a step further. The case then is: -
"You form your opinion of God from the account given of Him in the Bible; and I form my opinion of the Bible from the wisdom and goodness of God manifested in the structure of the universe, and in all works of Creation. The result in these two cases will be, that you, by taking the Bible for your standard, will have a bad opinion of God; and I, by taking God for my standard, shall have a bad opinion of the Bible.
"The Bible represents God to be a changeable, passionate, vindictive being; making a world and then drowning it, afterwards repenting of what he had done, and promising not to do so again. Setting one nation to cut the throats of another, and stopping the course of the sun till the butchery should be done. But the works of God in the Creation preach to us another doctrine. In that vast volume we see nothing to give us the idea of a changeable, passionate, vindictive God; everything we there behold impresses us with a contrary idea - that of unchangeableness and of eternal order, harmony, and goodness.
"The sun and the seasons return at their appointed time, and everything in the Creation claims that God is unchangeable. Now, which am I to believe, a book that any impostor might make and call the Word of God, or the Creation itself which none but an Almighty Power could make? For the Bible says one thing, and the Creation says the contrary. The Bible represents God with all the passions of a mortal, and the Creation proclaims Him with all the attributes of a God.
"It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man. That bloodthirsty man, called the prophet Samuel, makes God to say, (I Sam. xv. 3) `Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'
"That Samuel or some other impostor might say this, is what, at this distance of time, can neither be proved nor disproved, but in my opinion it is blasphemy to say, or to believe, that God said it. All our ideas of the justice and goodness of God revolt at the impious cruelty of the Bible. It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes.
"What makes this pretended order to destroy the Amalekites appear the worse, is the reason given for it. The Amalekites, four hundred years before, according to the account in Exodus xvii. (but which has the appearance of fable from the magical account it gives of Moses holding up his hands), had opposed the Israelites coming into their country, and this the Amalekites had a right to do, because the Israelites were the invaders, as the Spaniards were the invaders of Mexico. This opposition by the Amalekites, at that time, is given as a reason, that the men, women, infants and sucklings, sheep and oxen, camels and asses, that were born four hundred years afterward, should be put to death; and to complete the horror, Samuel hewed Agag, the chief of the Amalekites, in pieces, as you would hew a stick of wood. I will bestow a few observations on this case.
"In the first place, nobody knows who the author, or writer, of the book of Samuel was, and, therefore, the fact itself has no other proof than anonymous or hearsay evidence, which is no evidence at all. In the second place, this anonymous book says, that this slaughter was done by the express command of God: but all our ideas of the justice and goodness of God give the lie to the book, and as I never will believe any book that ascribes cruelty and injustice to God, I therefore reject the Bible as unworthy of credit.
"As I have now given you my reasons for believing that the Bible is not the Word of God, that it is a falsehood, I have a right to ask you your reasons for believing the contrary; but I know you can give me none, except that you were educated to believe the Bible; and as the Turks give the same reason for believing the Koran, it is evident that education makes all the difference, and that reason and truth have nothing to do in the case.
"You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New.
"When you have examined the Bible with the attention that I have done (for I do not think you know much about it), and permit yourself to have just ideas of God, you will most probably believe as I do. But I wish you to know that this answer to your letter is not written for the purpose of changing your opinion. It is written to satisfy you, and some other friends whom I esteem, that my disbelief of the Bible is founded on a pure and religious belief in God; for in my opinion the Bible is a gross libel against the justice and goodness of God, in almost every part of it."
God reveals Himself thru His Creation …….not thru what has been voted upon by men as the word of God. The works of men are evil. We have all of human history to prove it!
Here is a perfect example of how evil man is to his fellow man.....
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm
[ July 04, 2013, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Frank ]
--------------------
"Truth is no prostitute, that throws herself away upon those who do not desire her; she is rather so coy a beauty that he who sacrifices everything to her cannot even then be sure of her favor".
Posts: 644 | From: North Dakota | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
DanS
Scorched Earth (AZ Sector)
Member # 316
|
posted July 04, 2013 11:29 AM
Frank, have a happy 4th of July. Even though the actual declaration of independence was on July 2nd, not the 4th.
May God, Jesus Christ, or whatever mythical beast you do or don't believe in, give you peace.
[ July 04, 2013, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: DanS ]
--------------------
futuaris nisi irrisus ridebis
Saepe Expertus, Semper Fidelis, Fratres Aeterni:
Often Tested, Always Faithful. Brothers Forever!
Posts: 1465 | From: flyover country | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank
CAN START A FIRE WITH A BUCK KNIFE AND A ROCK
Member # 6
|
posted July 06, 2013 09:57 AM
Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Has to Change
According to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the recent terror bombings in Boston require a new interpretation of the Constitution to give the government greater power to protect citizens.
"The people who are worried about privacy have a legitimate worry," Bloomberg said during a recent press conference. "But we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater than you did back in the olden days, if you will. And our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change."
According to a Breitbart.com article, the anti-gun Bloomberg claims that recent attacks on the Second Amendment have left him confident that such re-interpretation is possible.
"The Supreme Court has recognized that you have to have different interpretations of the Second Amendment and what it applies to and reasonable gun laws," Bloomberg said. He employs the tactic of incrementally "lowering the bar" by suggesting that Americans should be willing to give up a degree of freedom in exchange for a degree of security.
"It really says something bad about us that we have to do it. But our obligation first and foremost is to keep our kids safe in the schools; first and foremost, to keep you safe if you go to a sporting event; first and foremost is to keep you safe if you walk down the streets or go into our parks," he said. "We cannot let the terrorists put us in a situation where we can't do those things. And the ways to do that is to provide what we think is an appropriate level of protection."
Bloomberg would do well to remember what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject back in 1775: "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
With the change in the makeup of the Supreme Court, from one populated predominantly by Protestants to one populated predominantly by Roman Catholics, the effects of an activist court on American society is clear. Where there used to be judicial restraint, which kept with a strict constructionist interpretation, to an activist court which makes up anything it likes, it's likely Bloomberg will get his way.
Any doubt about that should be erased given the recent Supreme Court decisions.
It should be noted that the security problems faced by Americans were created by liberal politicians (like Bloomberg and Ted Kennedy) when they passed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965
[ July 06, 2013, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Frank ]
--------------------
"Truth is no prostitute, that throws herself away upon those who do not desire her; she is rather so coy a beauty that he who sacrifices everything to her cannot even then be sure of her favor".
Posts: 644 | From: North Dakota | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Frank
CAN START A FIRE WITH A BUCK KNIFE AND A ROCK
Member # 6
|
posted July 07, 2013 06:32 AM
Fully 71 percent of Americans say the Founding Fathers would be ashamed of the direction the country has taken in recent years, a new survey from Gallup indicated on Thursday.
Gallup asked respondents in two June telephone surveys of first, 1,529 adults and then, of 2,048 adults: “Overall, do you think the signers of the Declaration of Independence would be pleased or disappointed by the way the United States has turned out?”
In 2001, an estimated 42 percent said the founders would be pleased. But now — not so many.
The numbers vary by region and political affiliation, as well as by age of respondents.
For instance, 74 percent of respondents from the South and 74 percent of those in the Midwest said Founding Fathers would see today’s America as a disappointment. But only 67 percent in the East and 66 percent in the West said the same.
Moreover, 83 percent of conservatives said the founders would be displeased. That’s compared to 54 percent of liberals and 68 percent of moderates.
By party, the differences are wider. Eighty-six percent of Republicans said Declaration of Independence signers would be disappointed in America, circa 2013, compared to 56 percent of Democrats and 73 percent of independents.
Those aged 65 or older expressed the most negative view, with 77 percent believing founders wouldn’t be happy with today’s America. That’s followed by the 18- to 29-year-old crowd, at 70 percent.
--------------------
"Truth is no prostitute, that throws herself away upon those who do not desire her; she is rather so coy a beauty that he who sacrifices everything to her cannot even then be sure of her favor".
Posts: 644 | From: North Dakota | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Prune Picker
AR Forum Assistant Moderator-handgun GURU and dispenser of sage advice
Member # 4107
|
posted July 08, 2013 10:57 PM
Unless we are bashing radical muzzies, this will be my only post about religion. I have lived in more than one foreign country for more time than one would normally spend on safari. Funny (not ha ha) that I felt more safe when the majority of the 3rd world population turned out to be Catholic. Another thing I witnessed in the UK was someone besides the IRA was just as guilty of murdering civilian men, women and children. I once read that over 90% of all wars were inspired and fought over religion. And how the uni bomber and religion got mixed together baffles the hell outa me. I have several friends that carry and read from a white bible. My mother read from a black bible, and my father read from a blue bible. If it's a bible, it's welcome in my home.
--------------------
mike
Posts: 1265 | From: "Oklahomie" | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
posted June 25, 2013 08:50 AM
Printer-friendly view of this topic
