tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post116049179335927278..comments2024-03-28T20:04:20.286-07:00Comments on One Cʘsmos: The Children of Light vs. the Communist Maninfestation (7.04.08)Gagdad Bobhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1161345028743463862006-10-20T04:50:00.000-07:002006-10-20T04:50:00.000-07:00oops! wrong postoops! wrong postDWPittellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02809996471988559374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1161344994877600552006-10-20T04:49:00.001-07:002006-10-20T04:49:00.001-07:00I agree with much of your post. However, I don’t t...I agree with much of your post. However, I don’t think that multiculturalists and other leftist “ists” deny all truth or the good. They are opposed to, for example, the subjugation and violence against women. It’s just that they worship the victimhood that comes from living in a backward or third-world society, to the extent of absolving the victims of all moral responsibility (i.e., they treaty them like infants). They also worship the nobility that comes from opposing our own, deeply corrupt society. A third-world man or nation can thus be criticized, theoretically, for wife-beating or clitoridectomy, but such criticism should be no more severe than that leveled for the excesses of a three-year-old, or of a WWII French resistance leader.DWPittellihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02809996471988559374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1161318551176294382006-10-19T21:29:00.000-07:002006-10-19T21:29:00.000-07:00TestTestximezehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09969724903834433405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160695594638401502006-10-12T16:26:00.000-07:002006-10-12T16:26:00.000-07:00Joseph said..."The scientists believe that they ha...Joseph said...<BR/>"The scientists believe that they have no ideology. That is the worst ideology imaginable."<BR/><BR/>That much we can definitely agree on.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160669835188348582006-10-12T09:17:00.000-07:002006-10-12T09:17:00.000-07:00Van,I am not very capable of making myself underst...Van,<BR/>I am not very capable of making myself understood. Some of the posts were speaking of the nuclear bomb as an example of the unqualified "good" of an independent and unfettered science. But, in my opinion, if you examine the thing, in itself, and not in the context of the world political situation, the nuclear bomb is an unqualified evil. Why? Because its design (not just its use) violates universal moral principles. It is designed to kill everyone in an area, a very large area, indiscriminately. Warfare is not designed as such. So, I am speaking of principles, not practices. <BR/>I am quite aware that it is a political and scientific reality that cannot be avoided, and I was not speaking in the slightest about its use in Japan.<BR/>Imagine, however, a world without it for a moment. This is why I am never, ever, in favor of a so-called unfettered science and technology. The scientists believe that they have no ideology. That is the worst ideology imaginable.<BR/>I agree whole-heartedly with your view that we should not espouse the idea that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, as we did in WWII. We followed the same exact idea in Afghanistan in the 80's, and helped to create an armed monster that came back to attack us several years later.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160668416143936242006-10-12T08:53:00.000-07:002006-10-12T08:53:00.000-07:00"Warfare has always had an ethic, whether followed..."Warfare has always had an ethic, whether followed or not" and in the outset of WWII, it was not being followed, the Nazi's (the blitz) and the Japanese (Nanking). At the time it was created and used, it averted the certain tens of thousands of death on our side alone - which I think well justified its use.<BR/><BR/>There is much point-counterpoint that can be made about nuclear weapons and the USA vs USSR - had leftists not leaked the knowledge, the USSR would almost certainly collapsed on its own within a single decade of WWII, rather than five. But again, the fact that the weapons did exist among Western powers, and wannabe Western-like powers, insured that they wouldn't be used - or at least heavily weighted the odds in the favor of their not being used.<BR/><BR/>"The nuclear weapon breaks every possible ethic of war. Civilians are never to be attacked. “It’s a nice thought, but other than isolated moments in modern history, it has never been the case. Those in the business of seeking power for powers sake, have never cared about civilians, go back as far as you like in history, and you will find the civilian population being either slaughtered on conquest, or sold off into slavery. Whatever pretensions to religious belief they may have made, the act of seeking power for powers sake is a sure sign that the Vertical has already been disintegrated from the horizontal, and any appearance of ethical behavior they might display, you can be assured that it is for appearances only.<BR/><BR/>"I am NOT suggesting its invention stems from American ideology, but an entirely atheistic ideology, one that believes everything that can be thought of, no matter what its outcome, should be created."<BR/><BR/>The problem of science and technology is that once created - its true reality, the knowledge of how to create it, is extremely portable, all you need is a head capable of storing it. We didn't seek to create such a weapon, but when a number of physicists realized that one of the consequences of the new knowledge of the atom was such a weapon, and that the Nazi's knew it too... like Pandora's box, once you peak inside there's no stopping the contents from flying out - and hoping it will go away is a losing proposition all around. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps the lessons that we should have learned from the cold war, are that the idea of "the enemy of your enemy is your friend" as with the Allies and the USSR, really means that the enemy of your enemy is one who will be in an excellent position to cut your throat when you trustingly turn your back on them. <BR/><BR/>That, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When Hitler first began moving on his neighbors, the West appeased in, thinking of the thousands of lives that might have been lost in an altercation with the Nazi's, and so insured that millions instead would die. Patton saw the necessity of ending the remaining totalitarian menace at the close of WWII, he was rebuked and ignored. Ignoring that advice gave the USSR the opportunity to get the know how to make a bomb. Not risking tens of thousands of lives in attacking at the moment they showed they had it, ensured that thousands would be created and the entire worlds population being put at risk.<BR/><BR/>And that standing by and allowing the power crazed to claim a country, of any size, thinking that they aren't a direct threat to you now, only allows them to become one later. As we are discovering with Korea and Iran, and... there are plenty of others around to fill in the blanks with.<BR/><BR/>Joseph, I know what you're saying, and I wish that the world we lived in was one that would recognize such dangers and stear safely away. But the world we live in is not a safe world. Playing by the Marquis of Queensbury rules when your opponent is packing a knife because he knows you won't, is folly and suicide. It seems to me that when the Good fails to recognize what the Evil are capable of, and does not take the necessary precautions to defend against them, then they are negligent in their responsibilities and enable the Evil to prosper.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160668066891261112006-10-12T08:47:00.000-07:002006-10-12T08:47:00.000-07:00Danny,This thread may be dead by now, but I have a...Danny,<BR/><BR/>This thread may be dead by now, but I have a question for you. Is it okay to kill cancer or a virus in your body? That is growth and life according to your definition. I would like to add that this growth and breath must be independent of any other human. In that case my original quesion still holds merit. There are really no right or wrong answers. The easist way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and abortion is of course to not get pregnant. Very easy today with modern medicine, but some people always need some kind of drama in their lives!Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04969685296436358865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160634638682808332006-10-11T23:30:00.000-07:002006-10-11T23:30:00.000-07:00The primary difference in the nuclear weapon, and ...The primary difference in the nuclear weapon, and why, no nation, up to this point has wanted to use it since our nation did, is that it is completely indiscriminate in separating combatants from non-combatants in warfare. Warfare has always had an ethic, whether followed or not. The nuclear weapon breaks every possible ethic of war. Civilians are never to be attacked. <BR/><BR/>I am NOT suggesting its invention stems from American ideology, but an entirely atheistic ideology, one that believes everything that can be thought of, no matter what its outcome, should be created. All religious people agree that some things simply should not exist. I am with Richard Luger. The weapon should be universally destroyed. It is, properly speaking, a Satanic invention. Not unlike Communism being a Satanic philosophy. <BR/>The idea that it prevented a war with the Soviets is nonsense. It was the basis of the Cold War, since our only fear of the Soviet menace could possibly be the fact that they gained access to the weapon. Other than weapons, they were a third world country, one that we could have easily defeated, had they attempted to attack us (minus nuclear weapons). I might add that the Islamist problem is only a major problem due to weapons technology. They are the first peoples to gain access or possible access to these weapons who will not have fear of using them. Indeed, the weapon finally found a people perfectly suited to it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160618294875665462006-10-11T18:58:00.000-07:002006-10-11T18:58:00.000-07:00Danny,An interesting comment, thanks."... its perf...Danny,<BR/>An interesting comment, thanks.<BR/><BR/>"... its perfection culminates in self-consciousness, which is not the case for other mammals whose souls have only consciousness." I'm not so sure that the higher mammals don't have self consciousness, but certainly theirs is rudimentary in comparison to Human self consciousness, lacking in the capacity to focus and maintain complex conscious purposes over time, reasoning, etc, and I suspect the Vertical conceptual depths are limited for them, if available at all.<BR/><BR/>I liked your analogy of the soul seeking to perfect the biological unit, be it a single cell, or a complex mammal. <BR/><BR/>After reading your comment, the image that came to my mind was that of the Soul, the 'life' in life, seeking to fill the biological container as breath does a balloon, mutually filling and expanding, or deflating and contracting, within the limits of the container's structure. <BR/><BR/>As consciousness appears, that expansion would be influenced and determined by the existence of conscious will in the structure, and the interaction between structure and spirit as directed by that conscious will, draws in volume from the Vertical depths - or lets it leak out. <BR/><BR/>In this analogy, the horizontal world might be limited to view these balloons without spiritual sight, but by physical weight as with a scale. Measured in this way one balloon as compared to another by weight would not seem to vary or change whether it is inflated to the size of an apple or a watermelon, but to the spiritual eye, the large Souls would stand out in firmness and size, far above the rest.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160618231503097142006-10-11T18:57:00.000-07:002006-10-11T18:57:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160608086855527422006-10-11T16:08:00.000-07:002006-10-11T16:08:00.000-07:00Joseph said..."Science is always a handmaiden to s...Joseph said..."Science is always a handmaiden to some ideology. The ideology that would lead to the invention of the nuclear weapon is that there are simply some humans less important than other humans. "<BR/><BR/>...Or that there are some humans worth defending against other humans.<BR/><BR/>Aside from the scope of people killed, how is it different from a gun, or a club, or a rock? Some will use it as a defensive weapon, some as an offensive weapon. The ideology that led to the invention of the nuclear weapon was that All men are created equal - and those who wish to challenge that deserve, and will receive, death and destruction on a massive scale.<BR/><BR/>It is largely what allowed us to have 40 years of Cold War instead of a full scale hot WWIII.<BR/><BR/>We'll see what comes next, but it won't be because of science or the American ideology that led to the invention of the nuclear weapon (in response to an agressive evil on a worldwide scale).Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160603139682543202006-10-11T14:45:00.000-07:002006-10-11T14:45:00.000-07:00Of course, one of the huge problems of unfettered ...Of course, one of the huge problems of unfettered scientific inquiry is the nuclear bomb, the most diabolic example of human ingenuity thus far devised. Odd that so many people argue that this is a good thing. Science is always a handmaiden to some ideology. The ideology that would lead to the invention of the nuclear weapon is that there are simply some humans less important than other humans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160581273118804932006-10-11T08:41:00.000-07:002006-10-11T08:41:00.000-07:00By the way, an excellent presentation of the Found...By the way, an excellent presentation of the Founders researching, debating and writing the Constitution, and a very readable book (and if you can get the original audiobook, it was very well done), is "Miracle At Philadelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention May - September 1787" by Catherine Drinker Bowen.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160581141272189412006-10-11T08:39:00.000-07:002006-10-11T08:39:00.000-07:00lisa said "Does a baby not have a soul and divine ...lisa said "Does a baby not have a soul and divine spark until his/her first independent breath?"<BR/><BR/>Aristotle: "the thing is alive if, for instance, there is intellect or perception or spatial movement connected with nourishment and growth and decay."<BR/><BR/>The key word for this discussion in Aristotle's definition is "growth". The moment one cell divides into two, growth is taking place, and the thing is alive, whether it be an acorn or a human egg. Birth and breath are simply stages of development. I would argue this is "objective outer knowledge" that van speaks of.<BR/><BR/>As for a soul, this can only be speculation or "subjective inner truth". But I personally believe anything that is alive has a soul, which can only be created by God, and that the maturation of the soul proceeds in tandem with the growth and maturation of its biological host. As the genetic and biological complexity of the host, determined by its DNA, increases, so does the extent of development of, and demands on, its soul. <BR/><BR/>Take a simple unicellular life. Its perfection is simply to be a perfect cell and, as is the case with most unicellular life, to achieve growth by dividing itself. The demand on its soul is small: develop into the perfect cell and then divide and be annihilated.<BR/><BR/>The tree is a complex form of plant life; its soul must guide its complex biological system to the perfect state of maturity, guiding the growth of roots and branches to best advantage for exploiting energy from the sun and the moisture and nourishment from the soil.<BR/><BR/>When we come to the complex biological life forms of birds and mammals, the soul must manage a sentient organism with a very complicated pattern of existence. This soul has consciousness and a level of intellect and reasoning. It must manage its biological host through the complexities of gestating, birthing, nourishing, rearing and teaching the young; through the gathering of, or hunting for, food, and storing of the food for later use; through seeking or building of shelter against the elements. <BR/><BR/>Man, too, is a mammal, so, in order to meet the basic needs common to mammals, the soul of man must also strive for the attainment of perfection of its human host. However, man's soul is a very special exnihilated creation; its perfection culminates in self-consciousness, which is not the case for other mammals whose souls have only consciousness. This self-consciousness is what sets man apart from all other living things.<BR/><BR/>So to answer your question, I believe the soul is present at the moment of life, otherwise there would be no life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160580952713646252006-10-11T08:35:00.001-07:002006-10-11T08:35:00.001-07:00stu said... "Please replace the world "adult" with...stu said... <BR/>"Please replace the world "adult" with "human." <BR/><BR/>Someone will inevitably misread the previous statement and assume that I am condoning infanticide or the killing the mentally retarded. "<BR/><BR/>... or moonbats.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160580905271889142006-10-11T08:35:00.000-07:002006-10-11T08:35:00.000-07:00tsebring,I'd note that the founders who were all w...tsebring,<BR/>I'd note that the founders who were all well versed in the classics, based their POLITICAL framework on Greco-Roman-Anglo models, not Judeo-Christian traditions (stick with me), taking into acccount and analysis an amazing sweep of history, and with extensive debate amongst themselves, they devised an amazing and concise framework for civil law. What they sought to creat was a framework for ethical people to live and thrive, and to work out disagreements amongst themselves in a civil manner. They provided for laws to deal with those unethical individuals, groups and foriegn entities who might seek to tread on the rights of others, and most importantly the constitution was designed to restrain the government from becoming either an unethical, OR an ethical actor in civil life - or at least as little as they could see being possible.<BR/><BR/>James Madison, the acknowledged Father of the constitution, when being presented with a bill to provide relief to refugees said (words to the effect of) "I find myself unable to put my finger on the line of the constitution that authorizes taking money from the citizens in order to benefit another group of people!", and dismissed it.<BR/><BR/>The Founders true genius was to realize that Ethical behavior, and here they were most certainly heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian mores, was the responsibility of the People themselves, they understood that Gov't - and by that they meant the distant repository of force and upholder of Law - if it were to become an actor in day to day ethical behavior, would be destructive to those ends.<BR/><BR/>Local State little "L" law & township regulations were where the customs of the local people might find some expression in law and standards - but not in big "G" Gov't.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160580011063945712006-10-11T08:20:00.000-07:002006-10-11T08:20:00.000-07:00Please replace the world "adult" with "human." So...Please replace the world "adult" with "human." <BR/><BR/>Someone will inevitably misread the previous statement and assume that I am condoning infanticide or the killing the mentally retarded.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160579905182928662006-10-11T08:18:00.000-07:002006-10-11T08:18:00.000-07:00Van,not only are the verification letters alien na...Van,<BR/>not only are the verification letters alien names (I am waiting for Beldar to come up), but they NEVER WORK THE FIRST TIME YOU SUBMIT THEM! Bob, why is that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160579759953998872006-10-11T08:15:00.000-07:002006-10-11T08:15:00.000-07:00Van,I am so glad that things turned out OK for you...Van,<BR/>I am so glad that things turned out OK for you and your family, and that that pseudo-doctor got his (although he is unfortunately probably practicing elsewhere). Abortion is definitely an issue fraught with lots of raw emotions on both sides of the fence, and I appreciate that fact. Though I don't wish pain on anyone (except mabybe bin Laden, Armageddonijad, and their ilk), I am reassured that the decision was one that gave you such pause. I have a lot of trouble with those who make the decision to abort cavalierly, with little or no hesitation, like they are taking out the trash or something. You obviously don't fit that category. I also have trouble with those who come across like SNL's Church Lady on the other side, displaying no sensitivity to those who struggle with it. As far as they're concerned, they're right; end of story.<BR/><BR/> As for the issue of whether it should be a matter for law, I have made my case, and you have made yours, which is at least as good as mine if not better; let us then agree to disagree on it and leave it at that. I suppose it could be said that a good compromise would be to let the states decide, giving people an alternative who believe either way. <BR/><BR/>Let it also be said that, just because I am against abortion, I definitely do not support intimidation of abortion patients, blowing up of clinics, or murder of doctors, any more than I support the mayhem and destruction of Earth First because I am an environmentalist (a "crunchy con", I suppose). We are a democracy, not a thugocracy, and, as such, we have the ability to vote according to our consciences without resorting to SDS and Hamas tactics. God Bless America.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160579691857637292006-10-11T08:14:00.000-07:002006-10-11T08:14:00.000-07:00Tsebring said:"We aren't killing an adult, but we ...Tsebring said:<BR/><BR/>"We aren't killing an adult, but we are killing a future adult, same as if we killed a baby or a child."<BR/><BR/>I think if you concede the difference between an adult and a potential adult, than you must also concede a difference between killing an adult and killing a potential adult.<BR/><BR/>Law exists to preserve our God-given rights. Mother's rights and fetus' rights. <BR/><BR/>The question is: When do the fetus' rights emerge and outweigh the rights of its host? And is it wise to legislate a distinct line?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160572898443033472006-10-11T06:21:00.001-07:002006-10-11T06:21:00.001-07:00OMG - the verification letters ARE space alien nam...OMG - the verification letters ARE space alien names!Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160572862989653752006-10-11T06:21:00.000-07:002006-10-11T06:21:00.000-07:00Gagdad,I hadn't looked at the two Genesis stories ...Gagdad,<BR/>I hadn't looked at the two Genesis stories in that way before, always stumped me why they'd keep two versions, possibly pre & post babylonian exile, in the OT. Me and my horizontal analysis... that open (opens? ever wonder where 'opens' opens up (up?) to?) up a lot of interesting avenues to explore.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for the 3-D (4-D?) compass pointers.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160572501022370062006-10-11T06:15:00.000-07:002006-10-11T06:15:00.000-07:00Will said..."Say, has anybody noticed that the wor...Will said..."Say, has anybody noticed that the word verification letters often spell out the names of space aliens?"<BR/><BR/>You been getting into your kitties cat nip again?Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160572313323464032006-10-11T06:11:00.000-07:002006-10-11T06:11:00.000-07:00tsebring,I'm out of my Troll killer role on this m...tsebring,<BR/>I'm out of my Troll killer role on this matter, I have a sense of the situation, but I honestly don't have a solid decision to defend. This a question that hits close to home & I don't feel all that comfortable arguing about. My Wife & I had planned to work for at least 2 years after getting married before having kids, God had a little snicker at our plans, and we were faced with the reality of having just moved to a state where we knew NOBODY, we had no money, and my resume consisted of 10 years of undocumented work as a bassist in a band.<BR/><BR/>Neither of us, however, could get past the idea that IT was going to be a person. We couldn't perform the mental trick of seeing it as just protoplasm that had no future. We also knew that we'd both, forever onwards, on seeing a child of the right age - wonder what if... and other thoughts as well. There was no way we could seriously consider getting an abortion. And now, 18 years later, that little bit of protoplasm could easily body slam me for fun.<BR/><BR/>With our daughter 11 years later, some @#$!&*# quack-assed Hospital administrator-had-been-'doctor' had read a paper on some latest buss theories about detecting birth defects from the first sonogram... and so he'd been poking his nose into all the sonograms, pushing the nurses & tech's out of the way to look for his buzz measurement... and with our boys out in the hall, and my wife & I looking at this squirming bundle of joy to be displayed on the screen ME:"Is that her head?", NURSE:"um, no, I believe that's her foot", ME:"Ah", this @#$! looks at the measurements, pushes the nurse aside and tells us that our baby is going to be a downs syndrome child and we should consider having an abortion.<BR/><BR/>Shattered, horrified... letters & words don't do it. The same discussion played out, and this time with reluctance, the same decision, no - can't do it. Well it turned out that the @#$!&*# quack-assed [insert your foulest curse here] was also an idiot and a fool, and was proven wrong shortly afterwards. And we got his butt canned & driven out of the hospital and state. She was born and is just fine.<BR/><BR/>But that thought... we couldn't do it. But that thought, those decisions, that struggle over choosing what you think is morally right - if someone had tried to wave a statute in our faces and say we had to do, or not do the 'proceedure' - I may not have been capable of ok'ing an abortion, but Murder would have been just A-OK by me.<BR/><BR/>The point is... I don't have an answer on it - I can't see the protoplasm separate from what it develops into, every instinct shrieks out that it is wrong... but it also is no damn place for the Gov't to be involved in. It just seems to me that a moral decision of such magnitutde, forced & determined for you, would be a double crime, and destroy the Morality all around.Van Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08470413719262297062noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8580258.post-1160572246228820792006-10-11T06:10:00.000-07:002006-10-11T06:10:00.000-07:00JW--The average visit to a doctor actually did har...JW--<BR/><BR/>The average visit to a doctor actually did harm to the patient until the emergence of modern medicine in the mid to late 19th century. Humankind in general was absolutely stagnant until the discovery of the scientific method. It makes no sense to say that free inquity only fixes errors faster, when its absence meant that problems were never fixed at all for the vast majority of human cultures down through history.Gagdad Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14249005793605006679noreply@blogger.com