ITS 2007: DOES ANYONE KNOW ANYTHING?

The bottom line is that Jesus said that He was the way and the truth. Pilate asked the same question of Jesus before his death: "What is truth"? The truth is a person.

Jesus said: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall MAKE you free."

I also know I'm logging out now and going to get my last Newcastle.

Edit: next-to-last Newcastle. :D

Not even science is black and white, as agendas still kick in. Theories are taken to be truth, and then one day someone comes out with a new truth and the old truth is just never talked about again.

In our world were everyone is a victim and people cry because "life isn't fair", we find ourselves in a very sad state of affairs.

Until people turn things around, get some self respect and self reliance, things will CONTINUE to get worse instead of getting better.

I know everything. But I'm kind of a b*tch and I'm not going to share. Happy freaking new year!!

You are the first 'rightie' to come up with a suggestion or solution to your perceived problem in many months.

For that you should be congratulated.

For the fact that your "solution" is sexual behaviour modification to alter homosexual tendencies, you are both pitied and scorned.

But unlike any other of your contemporaries, at least you didn't just complain and groan with no suggested remedy. You tried.

Edited to add reference: https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=207065&messageID=2144077

1. I know that I like women
2. I know that I am a man
3. I know that I like money
4. I know that I dont have enough money or women
5. I know that I am geeky

That is about all I know for sure right now, but I reserve the right to 'know' something else as I see fit.

I noted that everyone wants to be right. Most people want to create their own reality and design their own science. How come no one desires to discover the reality before us base on the natural science innate to this universe?

I fear that some are organizing a human truth through education, medicine, politics, and science to communicate a reality that is not true. I fear they are doing this for material gain such as money, sex, and power.

What is the truth?

... my answer won't be approved.

My reference point is my "head and heart". Into those things have gone all the people I've met, spoken to and learned from, and the things I've read and things I've seen.

Some of those things have been taken as examples of what TO do, and others as examples of what NOT to do.

A very fine gentleman once said that, in his opinion (although please accept my lack of reference if this is quoting some other famous identity) . . .

"You know when you're doing the right thing: You don't feel the need to either hide it from (or apologise about it to) your partner, family and/or close friends."

Now, how would this make me any different to you?

If I interpret what you have said, your reference point is probably very similar but lays (heavily?) upon a certain interpretation of the christian Bible.

I just wouldn't accept a pre-defined, "balck and white" (although the subject of conjecture on that point!!) criteria for right or wrong . I do accept it as one of many inputs. And I certainly accept your right to do use it. No worries.

It means, for example, that I can try to judge on individual circumstance (accepting of course that my own circumstance must, by definition, imply a bias of some kind).

In applying this to our other digression re homosexuality:

So, when I work, live, share dinners, go out partying or go on vacations with gay people I don't have to look at the person in front of me and think "Well you're okay - it's just all the other fags that are the problem". I can actually judge their humanity, contribution and existence on the manifold things they do, rather than their sexuality.

And unless you live in a vacuum, I would suggest it is physically impossible for you not to have had encounters with gay people for whom you have respect and participate cooperatively. Whether or not you would know that they are 'gay' is actually quite irrelevant. Given the high level of prejudice and bias it is no coincidence that many choose to keep their sex lives to themselves.

My personal experience with people such as yourself (with regards this particular topic) is that thay have indeed worked with, lived with, went to college with, shared in some sort of way a meaningful an happy relationship with gay individuals. And the straight people happily 'concede' that the gay person in front of you was fine. Hence my reference above. It's just the "other ones" that are the problem.

I am not sure that those who wrote the bible meant to disassociate or disenfranchise massive percentages of the population from the main story of love, equality, fairness and the "do not unto others" bit.

And every single gay person I have met (and had a relationship close enough to discuss such an intimate topic with) are certain that they became aware of their sexuality at the same time I became aware of mine.

I cannot say that this conclusively points to a biological reason or proof, but anecdotally it works for me.

And whilst there are people of every single persuasion who at certain times I'd probably like to bludgeon into shape, I can't see why that is even a criteria for discussion about a person's sexuality.

To paraphrase a particularly famous Australian sporting identity - "as long as they're not shoving their genitals down my throat" anyone can do whatever he or she wants.

It isn't need, cause or justification for behavioural modification.

.

.. do you seriously doubt this has happened for ever and anon?

.. do you seriously doubt it will continue to happen forever?

{Okay, granted - not too many folk would pick the computer-virus-to-human-virus as their topic for 15 minutes of fame. That is a good one and if possible I would love a reference to this event to pass around.}

I'd suggest that media and its accessibility gives you a feeling that this behaviour is more prevalent. Overall the increased accessibility of the media, in and of itself, must be a good thing.

But the influence of the information - the emphasis of one point without due coverage of the counter-point - well, that's pretty much life, wouldn't you suggest?

So what would be your suggestion to alleviate this?

Here's mine:

Perhaps more access to open sources of information (whatever the hell that means, of course!!).

For example, why not [b]give a PC and internet access to every single house [i] for free[/i]?[/b] The costs could be covered in less than 6 months of reduced public service fees. It could be a [b]net reduction in tax[/b] in so many ways.

Now some of our friends would suggest that this is a forced use of their tax dollars and thus should not happen "just because".

I actually see this as a critical step to the:

*** reduction of taxes thus enabling more people to do what they want with [i]more of their own money[/i];

*** that first point in turn leads to more opportunity for economic growth where more people with more capital can do more things.

(Yes, and the opportunity for rampant inflation to suck up the tax breaks but hey we can't have it all our own way!).

*** increasing the available opportunities and responsibility of individuals / families / communities who hereforto have become reliant on the public purse.

And hence why, since the dawn of governments / civilisations, access to open information is fundamentally opposite to the government's real agenda. They who own the information have the real power. And they don't want to share it, or certainly not in an objective sense.

Let's take it as a given that not all people would use this new-found access to increase their knowledge or empower their day-to-day life. That's human nature. But an increased amount of the population would.

And I think the cash benefits (i.e. straight reduction in taxes in the very near term) would shut up a lot of the "theoretical" complainers.

Heck, with full access to open information, even you, 2Bad4U, could actually learn the facts about the positive influence of hundreds of millions of people irrespective of their sexuality.

And can you begin to see why, for specifically that kind of example, the "church" (being the organised entity) [i]to this day[/i] keeps much of its own information and musings well away from the prying ears of the congregation???

(I speak directly to examples of the Catholic Church but give me Google and an hour and I'll find you any number of 'churches' throughout history that will provide ample evidence of my claim).

So two questions:

- Why do you appear to feel that this is a new phenomenon?

- What would [b]you[/b] suggest to alleviate / minimise / avoid this phenomenon?

The task that you would have me undertake is not relevant to my post and would therefore not serve to either support or rebutt it.

It's a fool's task; perhaps you'd like to accept it.

I must reject the claim that someone is a owner of information on the basis that information belongs to a body of knowledge and the community of practice exploits it. The notion that there is proprietary information is ridiculous. There are people who attempt to control and dominate information in various ways for various purposes but in no way does anyone own it. Even ideas are not truly owned because everyone has ideas - often the same ideas.

I know there are laws on intellectual property, no compete clauses, and personal data all of which are only temporally controlled for the reasons of profitability rights and security.

In your response you asked.

Why do you appear to feel that this is a new phenomenon?

I don't feel babble science and politics is new. I think the implementation of methods to subvert people to these whimsical ideas is dangerous. I see people organizing partials truths as absolutes and destroying what was credible absolutes. Resulting in the only thing that is absolute is there are no absolutes.

Some of the manipulation is quite deceiving or deceitful. There was one politician who forced people to remove there signs for the opponent on a route using strong arm politics. The purpose was to present the politicans motorcade on TV as passing through ordinary America where there was no opposition. This case is mild compared to some of the more deceitful stuff.

What would you suggest to alleviate/minimise/avoid this phenomenon?

If people reverted to accepted mathematical and scientific practices much of the debate would go away. If people lack skill in one area or another then they should be a little more humble realizing they are not a know-it-all.

Much of the problem is people at various stations of maturing their moral fibers. Some are very selfish while others are not-so-selfish. Rarely have I come across someone who is selfless.

It would be great if there were some sort of consumer digest for information. Some sort of audit service that stamps information as credibly derived meeting certain standards.

if the other person was out to hurt you or cause you anguish, would you be wrong?
I treat people well usually, but I have to put my foot down sometimes, or get walked all over.

Do you ever feel the footsteps on your back???

What you are expressing is a variant of Geodel's Theorum - there are more truths about a system such that no system can be self-desciptive. The kind of logic you are applying is vertical logic. Try applying lateral logic. One point you need to consider is that the natural cannot extend to the supernatural or else the supernatural would be the natural. They are distinctly unique realms. The supernatural may be inclusive of the natural while the natural may be exclusive of the suppernatural.

The Judeo/Christian God provides no comments about his purpose or origins. He only remarks that he created the natural universe and that it is here to serve his purposes. The human purpose is to worship God.

In fact, he remarks that human will is limited as well. One cannot will themselves the gifts from God as they are his to give. The best anyone can do is not sin but no human can will this. The human cannot will himself not to die as God said all must die the first death. The human cannot will himself to understand the awesomeness of God. There are numerous aspects in which your ability to comprehend is simply not possible. But the Judeo\Christian God also has a means to cause one to comprehend that which suites Gods purposes, its the holy spirit.

Under normal circumstances. That is what you wanted, isn't it? :|

When provoked, I respond as the situation demands. There might be a kick mark or two on my butt, but there are no footprints on my back. :D

edit: emoticons

Two people can be completely civil and violently disagree having to very different truths.

Look at those argument between Intelligent Design and The Blind Watchmaker. The fight is not over science, although science gets warbled terribly. The fight there is over origin of our reality; there is a God vs there is not a God.

Consider another argument over global warming. The problem statement is quite simple. If carbon producing gases (CO, CO2) are indiscriminantly released into the atmosphere in sufficient quantities then they form a blanket around the globe trapping heat. But the arguments confuse this with depletion of the ozone layer (O3) and chloroflourocarbon (CL3FC) emissions. One would think there are only two solutions (a liberal and conservative one) with clear science then some sort of philosophical thought. But instead there are enormous number of views that for the most part are not accurate. The science is not even accurate.

The bottom line is that treatment is only a fraction of the problem.

Three very simple questions:

1. Have scriptures ever been 'interpreted' by a king, queen, leader, country, despot (whatever term you'd like) for their own personal benefit?

2. Have that person's / nation's people (including their religious leaders)invariably accepted that interpretation and followed along knowing 'god is on their side'?

3. Have the target of their attention often turned to the same scriptures and felt good that god was on their side?

So, we've blown mathematics and science out of the water as a 'standard measure' of right and wrong.

I'm sure you see that the answers to the above three questions are all 'yes'. Thus the infinite ability of man to interpret things to his advantage means that no single set of written rules can act as a universal guide.

Time we have to stand up and make decisions about what is right and wrong for ourselves, don't you think?

Contrary to your insistence, and that of others, evolution does [b]not speak of a Creator[/b]. Your persistent cries to the contrary serve only to evidence either a lack of understanding of the sciences, or a deliberate ignoring of them.

Likewise for your portrayal of the controversy surrounding global warming.

The repetition of a falsehood cannot make it truth.

I am always right, everyone else is always wrong. So from now on, be exactly like me! If you don't, you will all burn in hell?

P.S. -- I dont believe in hell so this is a bad message on my part. Ok, I was wrong 1 time today.

So far I am wrong no matter what and everyone else is a genius!

Perhaps I should toss the idea of joining Mensa out the door and join Faber University.

If I study hard and for long enough, do I get to glow silver and fly really fast?

Tom Cruise thinks so. Isn't he an eighth-dan Scientologist or something?

Where do I get a theological scholarly lay?

My apologies. I didn't realize that was the kind of truth you were looking for. For that kind of truth, you will need to look where you feel most comfortable.

And accept that other people will also have their truths.

I am not specifically seeking in this forum spiritual truth as much as discussing accurate natural truth. The spiritual has come up several times. In my Worldview, I see something far greater than the natural and something for more powerful than any knowledge or wisdom I may gain. In fact, whatever wisdom I stumble upon is not my own. It is revealed to me by one side or the other. Somehow, I must reconcile this 'gift' wisdom and attribute it to either a good or evil conscience. I must be able to 'see' from many approaches such as the wisdom itself, my current disposition, and from outside the natural.

Pure study may reveal knowledge but it cannot provide wisdom. While knowledge is the rock upon which wisdom is built, the counsels of wisdom must be derived from another source.

The movies attritube the source of wisdom to a sage, monk, or swami like Darth Vader (of a evil conscience) or Yoda (of a good conscience)who has some sort of supernatural connection with a force or spirit. These movies go even further with the Matrix and attempt to demonstrate human reality as a computational algorhythm that has been breached. Neo is to be a Christ-like figure performing miracles within the "computational algorhythm". All these fall short as sources of wisdom if you observe that they all connect to something and some reality far beyond themselves that has some sort of origin beyond itself.

Most people think in terms of vertical logic but by making paradigm shifts in thinking (lateral logic) we can discover a more truthful reality. For example, humans search for the boundary to space by travelling to a location in space but the actual boundary is in terms of the orders-of-magnitude. Most of the world thought at one time the Earth was the center of the universe and the stars revolved around the Earth within space but learned otherwise in terms of space. Yet we rediscovered that in terms of orders of magnitude the Earth is the geometric center of the universe!

In the end the natural has a connection to the supernatural but probably not in the conventional sense of thinking. If we reconcile what we learn from accurate discovery and apply that to the various Faiths one begins to stand out and one quickly begins to realize (through revelation) a powerful source of truth. The Judeo\Christian Bible remarks that the universe is made from nothing and of things we cannot see nor count. Could these kinds of discoveries be a way of validating the supernatural within the natural?

I have no special connection than anyone else but for me, the wisdom was revealed as a gift by a force beyond my comprehension. I struggle on a regular basis with a barrage of "knowledge" that must be vetted. As time moves along and I build a solid base of knowledge that has been revealed, "garbage" knowledge becomes more evident and good wisdom grows brighter.

I watch as desparate people attempt to validate "knowledge" not properly reconciled. They desire to cling to a notion or thought that is nothing more than a good idea, a wisp event in a temporal spanse. In their vain attempts they resort to name calling and character attacks. Ever wonder why principles are timeless?

So I do not think that one can think or will themselves into something greater. They are a part of a larger entity as either a cancer that must be eventually destroyed or a vital organ that functions in harmony with the body. If in harmony then the necessary nutrients are sent to them to strengthen them in the body.

Being a genius is a statement re. one's IQ; using it properly is quite a different matter.

One's IQ is merely a measure of [i]potential[/i]; the ability to use it in a [b]rational[/b] manner is wholly independent of such.

While you may in fact be quite intelligent, such does not negate the fact that you are highly [b]irrational.[/b]

That you take your beliefs for facts, confuse faith with logic, and publicly flaunt your ignorance is very great theatre indeed.

[i]Hire the handicapped; they're fun to watch.[/i]