Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 6 Feb 2007 14:30 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45C7E5F9.D2F9656B(a)hotmail.com... > > > unsettled wrote: > >> T Wake wrote: >> > >> > Christianity regards the Bible, a collection of canonical books in two >> > parts, the Old Testament and the New Testament, as authoritative: >> > written by >> > human authors under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and therefore >> > the >> > inerrant Word of God.[43] >> > >> > (Source 43 reads Catechism of the Catholic Church, Inspiration and >> > Truth of >> > Sacred Scripture (�105-108); Second Helvetic Confession, Of the Holy >> > Scripture Being the True Word of God; Chicago Statement on Biblical >> > Inerrancy) >> > >> > Despite this, Catholicism has evolved. >> >> As it is supposed to, along with the rest of Christianity. > > It's had 2000 yrs to do so. I don't recall any suggestion it was supposed > to > evolve btw. > According to the Catholic Church's basic doctrines Christianity shouldn't evolve (although Evolution is acceptable to Catholics, at least under the previous Pope - there is a chance this one will go against the flow as it were). I see no reason to view Islam as any different.
From: T Wake on 6 Feb 2007 14:50 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:45C7E514.6081C1DE(a)hotmail.com... > > > T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> > >> >> What we are seeing is the struggle between modernization and >> >> keeping things at the status quo. Those who do not want to change >> >> are trying to destroy the cause of those who want to mondernize. >> >> >> >> Modernization means including Western civilization's progress. >> >> >> >> Until WWI and the final breakup of the Ottoman Empire, there was >> >> no WEstern civilization influcence to tempt most Muslims. Even >> >> those who were the first embassadors to Europe in the late >> >> 1800s could not understand most of the European lifestyle. >> >> There was no way they could send back explanations for certain >> >> things like entertainment, science, art and medicine. >> > >> > I'm increasingly convinced that many Muslims, even those living in the >> > west now here in fact, still don't fully understand our culture >> > actually. >> That may >> > explain why they react so badly to bits of it. I suspect they may take >> > bits >> of it >> > too 'literally'. See the business about the Dutch 'cartoons' for >> > example. >> >> Danish :-) >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy >> >> > The other thing is that I think they're unused to thinking for >> > themselves >> > as much as we do. >> >> Blimey, does this include Muslims who were born in the UK? > > Some of them no doubt. It's clear that those born here are very diverse in > their > behaviour. Do you not find that means Muslims are diverse in their behaviour? Even not including UK born Muslims, there are massive differences between those from Tunisa, Turkey, Cyprus, Libya etc. Making sweeping statements like "muslims are unused to think for themselves" is pretty much open to errors. >> What about people from other religions who convert to Islam? > > I've found it curious to see that some Britsish Muslim converts have > apparently > become as radical as those born into the religion. Often the way. There is something fundamentally [*] weird about converts to any religion. Generally people who are born into a religion are the most likely to pay it lipservice - those who make the conscious choice as adults to adopt a religion (especially the Monotheistic ones) seem to feel the need to prove they are more holy than thou. This is not just Islam, Christianity has the same problem and even people who "become" Buddhists have a massively different view on it than those who grow up with it. -- [*] Pun fully intended.
From: T Wake on 6 Feb 2007 14:51 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq9tc9$8ss_006(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... <snip> > And the politically correct nonsense is helping the destruction. > I just read a book written by a woman whose business is to > provide nanny help to people who live inside the Beltway. Dont believe everything you read in books like this. > None of those people have a grasp on reality. I bet that is really not the case.
From: T Wake on 6 Feb 2007 14:56 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq9s94$8ss_003(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <ROqdnZTArpclwFrYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > <snip> > >>The value of the pound cuts both ways, thanks to BAH's heroine > > Oh, good grief. First you demand a reference. I give it to you. > Now you are blathering that I must believe that Thatcher couldn't > do any wrong. If I referenced _Mein Kamph_(sp?) would also > claim that Hilter was my hero? The word "heroine" was there to imply, not that you actually hero worshipped Thatcher, but that you took her words to carry more weight than they did - and that you felt her actions were the right and proper ones to do. Do you want me to Google the posts you have made which support this claim of mine or can you remember them? I do not, and have not, said you think Thatcher did no wrong. I have said that not all the things *you* think Thatcher did right, were done right. You use of a mini-strawman is noted though.
From: T Wake on 6 Feb 2007 15:04
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eq9t6s$8ss_005(a)s807.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <PY2dnZg-I_A77lrYnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:eq7bq8$8qk_003(a)s1004.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <2srcs2douj8ck4ojlg9fsvio58o83hf97c(a)4ax.com>, >>> MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >>>>On Sun, 04 Feb 07 15:56:58 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: >>>> >>>>>In article <45C34470.DCB07DFF(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >I think you should read up about rationing during WW2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have. It is significant that England couldn't figure out how >>>>>>> to stop war rations until 3 decades after the warring stopped. >>>>>> >>>>>>3 decades ! Where on earth did you get that figure from ? What was >>>>>>being >>>>>>rationed in 1975 ? >>>>> >>>>>I found it. whew! >>>>> >>>>>Reference: _The Downing Street Years_; Margaret Thatcher, >>>>>Harper-Collins; >>>>>1993; page 44. >>>>> >>>>>"But I took greatest personal pleasure in the removal of exchange >>>>>controls -- that is the abolition of the elaborate statuatory >>>>>restrictions on the amount of foreign exchange British citizens >>>>>could acquire. These had been introduced as an 'emergency measure' >>>>>at the start of the Second World War and maintained by successive >>>>>governments, largely in the hope of increasing industrial >>>>>investment in Britain and of resisting pressure on sterling." >>>>> >>>>>/BAH >>>> >>>> >>>> That's not "rationing", dingledorf. That's inflation control, and >>>>economic growth initiative. >>> >>> They were rationing the amount of money anyone could have, >>> especially businesses that could have expanded outside the >>> country. >> >>Not really. > > Your politicians were forcing England's industry and manufacturing > to make all of their own stuff. They couldn't buy technology > from outside the country. Again, no. You have a misunderstanding here. British (not England) industry was able to buy in Technology (and it did). The regulations were in place to limit the amount of foreign exchange people could buy (which keeps British money inside the UK) and there is a difference. It should be noted, however, since Thatcher, British industry has never recovered. Was that a good thing? > Besides this, industry had their > hands tied because they had to dump monies down the unions' > black holes. Your anti-Unionism means you don't understand how the unions in the UK worked. What you say here is incorrect. > What is a wonder is how well England has survived > this economically. I agree. It is a miracle that England survived the Thatcher years. We didn't really, the late 80s were terrible. > Now, I know this is going to be hard for you to do but think just > a little bit. Quite ironic really. You have yet to demonstrate you do _any_ thinking in this thread. You regurgitate pre-conceived ideas and ignore any information which may be contrary to them. See what I mean about ironic? |