we don’t know anything about this person
Well yes we do, hence the comment. We know that this person was apparently a creationist who was the head of a science department in a well regarded school. And we are told that she apparently didn't teach creationism to her students. What she taught her students she must have therefore have perceived to be a lie.
The previous Pope allowed gluten free host and so far as I know that hasn’t been overturned.
😊 Yeah I don't think the Catholic church claims that when Christ said to apostles at the Last Supper take this for it is my body and blood which will be given up for the forgiveness of sins that they are claiming he actually gave them each a piece of his flesh.
If you believe that God is an all-powerful omnipotent being then appearing in the form of a gluten free host isn't going to be a problem.
Georges Lemaitre was a devout Catholic priest who believed in transubstantiation and came up with the Big Bang Theory. It might not sit comfortably with your preferred narrative but that is the fact.
And if you are unhappy about that you will be gutted when you hear about the person they call "the father of modern genetics".
my real point is there is little or no difference between believing in something with no proof that is simply a product of your upbringing and most conspiracy theories.
So you keep saying. Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it any more than just your opinion.
Article on Radio4 yesterday and this morning about The Light - only caught a few minutes.
We know that this person was apparently a creationist who was the head of a science department in a well regarded school. And we are told that she apparently didn’t teach creationism to her students. What she taught her students she must have therefore have perceived to be a lie.
What is creationism? That the world popped into existence over 6 days? Or that the 6 days is not to be taken literally and God created the world using natural mechanisms (including evolution) over millions of years, equivalent to 6 days in some spiritual/metaphysical sense?
It's not a simple answer, I once read a great book (by a religious Jewish rabbi) going into this in detail.
Suffice to say she did not necessarily have to be teaching a lie.
What is the “nature” of god for you’re FiL?? Is it a supreme being who created the universe and to whom we therefore owe some respect and tradition or does he really believe Moses lived to 400 and the walls of Jericho literally fell with a trumpet and carrying a box round them? etc.
Moses lived to 120 😉
Again, various levels of taking it literally, but yes the basis is something like "don't take it literally, but believe that it could be literal and that is one explanation".
we don’t know anything about this person
Well yes we do, hence the comment
My point was we don't know enough about the teacher to surmise they're a bad at their job, that they lie everyday to their pupils and themselves, that their faith is not strong, and the school must not be reputable for continuing to employ them!!!!!!
Article on Radio4 yesterday and this morning about The Light – only caught a few minutes.
Marianna in Conspiracyland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001mssm
What is creationism? That the world popped into existence over 6 days?
Yeah that one. That is the widely recognised definition of a creationist. If the person in question believed that the world was created over billion of years then it would have been pointless to even mention her, it is generally a given that science teachers accept that the world was formed over billions of years.
My point was we don’t know enough about the teacher to surmise they’re a bad at their job
No one has claimed that she was bad at her job. The point I was making is that I am struggling to believe that she was particularly good at it. I can't but think that teachers who actually believe what they are teaching probably make better teachers. Would you have much confidence in a physics teacher that didn't believe in gravity?
Yes, young earth creationist as in thinks the world is ~6k years old.
All 'well regarded' really means in this context is 'gets good exam results, does well at OFSTED inspections'. Given she was (now retired) senior member of the team that got those results, she couldn't have been too bad at her job at least in that narrow sense. I don't think she would have thought that she was teaching a lie either. She'd say that when science and her reglion conflict, she believes the science to be 'valid', but the religion to be 'correct'. That was mainly evolution and big bang etc - that leaves a lot of science to teach without conflict. She would be able to explain plenty of methods to date the earth for example, and what the outputs of of those methods are (>>> 6k years). But she'd be equally able to put those outputs in the bin because jeebus.
To bring the conversation full circle, her husband (my dads brother) is an avid reader of The Light. We've lost touch with them now, he became too difficult to deal with, constantly ranting about jews running the world etc.
nickc
This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. […] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or “Universal Ruler”. […] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect
so said Issac Newton. Principia is dedicated to essentially working out the Maths that God must use to make the universe work. I find that idea that you think these people didn’t understand fully that their God existed and guided their hand beyond ridiculous. (and just a wee bit arrogant)
Unless you subscribe the the conspiracy theory that his diaries are faked and the dating of the ink and paper and handwriting analysis is a conspiracy then whatever Newton said about religion in public was because he preferred not to have a Christian execution and be burned alive for heresy. He was also a practicing alchemist which also carried a capital sentence if less brutal than the Christian one.
Whatever god he perceived may or may not exist was most certainly not the Christian one
What is it with Jews? Why is antisemitism even a thing?
I'd like to think I'm reasonably intelligent but there are some frankly embarrassingly large holes in my knowledge. Like the whole "troubles" in Northern Ireland, two different schisms of Christianity blowing each other up because they worship the same god in slightly different ways. I'm sure it's far more complex than that but I don't get it, I never have. But that's probably another thread.
Similarly, I have no doubt that "it's complicated" but the Jewish seem to be a weird demographic to hate. I genuinely don't understand. I have a couple of friends who are Jewish, they're lovely. I cannot get behind ritual genital surgery on infants and half of what she posts on Facebook might as well be in a foreign language, but other than that what's to dislike? Is that it, it's a different culture so it's Othering? She spends most of her time baking and knitting. Those evil, evil cakes.
I'm not far from North Manchester which has a thriving community of Orthodox Jews. You have to wear black and can't cut your hair? Where do I sign?
Whatever Newton said about religion in public was because
...he believed in it. Honestly, he really did.
I understand that that may be inconceivable to you, but making up history becasue the truth doesn't (or cant) fit your world view, is a wild take.
What is it with Jews? Why is antisemitism even a thing?
You know that bit in the Bible, where you finish one half and you turn the last page of Malachi, and it says "New Testament"?
That.
What is creationism? That the world popped into existence over 6 days?
what they said was ...
a young earth creationist
This specifically means the universe popped into existence over 6 days 6,000 years ago and god (or devil) created fossils and all dating methods that proved differently at the same time.
…he believed in it. Honestly, he really did.
Then why did he write tens of thousands of pages to the contrary ?
Do you actually believe his diaries are real or do you think they are a fake or something ???
Then why did he write tens of thousands of pages to the contrary ?
He believed in the Biblical God. However you want to spin it to fit your narrative, that is pretty much the start middle and finish of it.
You know that bit in the Bible, where you finish one half and you turn the last page of Malachi, and it says “New Testament”?
Not really, no.
I thought we'd all dismissed the OT as "yeah, oops, what were we thinking" now anyway?
I went to college with Malachi. True story.
What is it with Jews? Why is antisemitism even a thing?
You know that bit in the Bible, where you finish one half and you turn the last page of Malachi, and it says “New Testament”?
That.
Eh? The Old Testament is full of stuff about the persecution of Jews. Don't tell me that you are unaware of the Assyrian captivity, Babylonian exile, or Seleucid Empire?
Have a butchers at the Book of Exodus and Moses and enslavement in Egypt, it's quite famous! Also the Book of Daniel which is set in the 6th century BC and whose central message is that God will deliver Israel from oppression.
I've got 4 days driving someone around at work next week who is deep into the rabbit hole
Is his name Warren?
Oh, well done that man! 🎩🎯
two different schisms of Christianity blowing each other up because they worship the same god in slightly different ways.
Just don’t get started on the convoluted factions of Islam who have been happily slaughtering each other for centuries because they can’t agree on which members of their prophets family has the right to be head of the faith.
Their name isn't Warren and I never said they were a he. ,😜
They're an otherwise nice enough person until they get started on 5g, and controlling governments, vaccines, cashless societies.
factions of Islam who have been happily slaughtering each other for centuries
How many centuries of peace has Europe had? Whilst religion is often used as an excuse it rarely is the reason for wars, the quest for power and wealth is.
The Ottoman Empire, which btw welcomed Jews that were expelled from Europe due to religious hatred, lived much of its 600 year history in relative peace.
Indeed that fact played a significant part in the Ottoman Empire's eventual downfall - whilst Europeans were in a constant state of war, either with each other or with other people across the globe, the relative peace that Islamic Empire enjoyed meant that its military fell behind that of warmongering European states, leading to its eventual downfall and European conquest/control.
I would be interested in any evidence that Muslim countries have a greater predisposition to go to war with each other than non-Muslim countries.
Indeed that fact played a significant part in the Ottoman Empire’s eventual downfall –
Shame its about as accurate as claiming Newton wasnt a believer.
The Ottoman Empire was an extremely aggressive empire for over half of its existence waging continued wars of expansion as well as an aggressive slave trading policy.
This only halted when the states it was attacking started to become modern states especially Russia and Austria.
The only real period of peace was a few years when it had been pushed back but the other countries were consolidating.
After that it was on the back foot.
Whatever god he perceived may or may not exist was most certainly not the Christian one
All his views were based on the Christian bible. Admittedly some of his private opinions were rather unorthodox and even heretical in the eyes of some other Christians but he was definitely a believer in a version of the Christian god.
The Ottoman Empire was an extremely aggressive empire for over half of its existence waging continued wars of expansion as well as an aggressive slave trading policy.
Did you not see the use of the word "relative"? The word relative was used in the context of other non-Muslim empires. If it was extremely aggressive for over half of its existence as you claim it certainly compares favourably with European empires.
Do you believe there was any period during the time of the British Empire that Britian wasn't engaged in military operations, wars, and expansion?
This only halted when the states it was attacking started to become modern states especially Russia and Austria.
That is just a convoluted way of saying what I said whilst portraying them as the aggressor. I said:
whilst Europeans were in a constant state of war, either with each other or with other people across the globe, the relative peace that Islamic Empire enjoyed meant that its military fell behind that of warmongering European states
It is generally accepted that wars bring about huge technology advances.
And since you brought up Russia and Austria :
During a long period of peace from 1740 to 1768, the Ottoman military system fell behind that of their European rivals, the Habsburg and Russian Empires.
So whilst you might want to dispute the accuracy of the comment it is possibly not as inaccurate as claiming that Newton wasn't a believer.
Anyway none of that provides evidence that Muslims have been "happily" slaughtering each other for centuries because of a schism in Islam.
Their name isn’t Warren and I never said they were a he. ,😜
Comedic Licence. I don't usually assume gender, but if I didn't in this specific instance then the joke doesn't work.
Whilst religion is often used as an excuse it rarely is the reason for wars, the quest for power and wealth is.
Horses after carts. The quest for power and wealth is why we have religion. And it's been phenomenally successful.
The quest for power and wealth is why we have religion.
Not really. It's the reason we have armies.
Religion played very little if any role in huge empires such as Roman, Mongol, and British empires, armies certainly did.
In fact successful empires are usually very tolerant of religious diversity, there really isn't any point adding unnecessary grievances to subjected people.
The Mongols, who had the largest contiguous land empire in history, were particularly tolerant to religious diversity.
Comedic Licence. I don’t usually assume gender, but if I didn’t in this specific instance then the joke doesn’t work.
You're normally good for that so despite your comment making me chuckle I couldn't help but give a gently poke about it. They are a he though.
The BBC show Marianna in conspiracyland was quite good. The George Monbiot discussion at the end was probably the most troubling aspect of it for me.
The 'do your own research' comment which I always took as a lazy way of people closing debates they never hand the answers to came out as being a very subtle but Powerful recruitment tool.
A lot of the othering and Scapegoating reminds me of reading Jon Ronson's book 'Them'
Anyway, back to religion
Religion played very little if any role in huge empires such as Roman, Mongol, and British empires,
Hahah, this thread is great.
If it was extremely aggressive for over half of its existence as you claim it certainly compares favourably with European empires.
No it doesnt. Because the only reason it had stopped being so aggressive was it had been checked by developing powers.
At which point like many Empires which relied on permanent expansion it slowly stagnated and then declined.
Do you believe there was any period during the time of the British Empire that Britian wasn’t engaged in military operations, wars, and expansion?
I love the dishonesty merging several different things together here.
Was the British Empire expanding the entire time. Nope. Just like the Ottoman Empire it expanded until it met opposing forces strong enough to check it, held for a time and then declined.
Now did it engage in wars most of the time then yes but so did the Ottoman Empire. Just like the Ottomans early on it was attack and then later rearguard actions trying to keep the territory it had seized.
There is a clue in word "Empire". You dont get it by being a peaceful hippy (I guess the Habsburgs come closest to managing it with their habit of expansion through marriage but they mixed it up with plenty of violence to).
That is just a convoluted way of saying what I said whilst portraying them as the aggressor. I said:
No it wasnt. As for "portraying them as the aggressor" go and look at the definitions of "Empire". To get to be one you pretty much have to be an aggressor.
And since you brought up Russia and Austria :
Yes now go and read that quote carefully. Note that its 30 years. Doesnt really match your claim about being at peace for long. Plus you are missing the context of that period of peace.
Not really. It’s the reason we have armies.
Two cheeks of the same arse. Dressing up subjugation as a benefit to the great unwashed.
Religion played very little if any role in huge empires such as Roman, Mongol, and British empires, armies certainly did.
Because no-one ever sent missionaries to godless countries to educate them in the ways of the lord. Ask John Allen Chau how that worked out for him. 😁
Because no-one ever sent missionaries to godless countries to educate them in the ways of the lord.
And you think religion was the main driver behind the British Empire?
I beg to differ, power and wealth was, not religion.
**In fact wasn't the East India Company opposed to the sending of missionaries to India as they got in their way as they tried to accumulate power and wealth? I believe that the East India Company might have had the legal power to expell missionaries from Britian.
Edit: Btw Christianity has existed in India for longer than it has existed in Great Britain.
If it was extremely aggressive for over half of its existence as you claim it certainly compares favourably with European empires.
No it doesnt. Because the only reason it had stopped being so aggressive was it had been checked by developing powers.
At which point like many Empires which relied on permanent expansion it slowly stagnated and then declined.Do you believe there was any period during the time of the British Empire that Britian wasn’t engaged in military operations, wars, and expansion?
I love the dishonesty merging several different things together here.
Was the British Empire expanding the entire time. Nope. Just like the Ottoman Empire it expanded until it met opposing forces strong enough to check it, held for a time and then declined.Now did it engage in wars most of the time then yes but so did the Ottoman Empire. Just like the Ottomans early on it was attack and then later rearguard actions trying to keep the territory it had seized.
There is a clue in word “Empire”. You dont get it by being a peaceful hippy (I guess the Habsburgs come closest to managing it with their habit of expansion through marriage but they mixed it up with plenty of violence to).That is just a convoluted way of saying what I said whilst portraying them as the aggressor. I said:
No it wasnt. As for “portraying them as the aggressor” go and look at the definitions of “Empire”. To get to be one you pretty much have to be an aggressor.
And since you brought up Russia and Austria :
Yes now go and read that quote carefully. Note that its 30 years. Doesnt really match your claim about being at peace for long. Plus you are missing the context of that period of peace.
Okay, you have decided to ignore the word 'relative'.
So where is the evidence that Muslims were "happily" slaughtering each other for centuries because of a schism in Islam?
Just realised this:
I believe that the East India Company might have had the legal power to expell missionaries from Britian.
Obviously a typo - I think that the East India Company might have had the legal power to expel missionaries from India .
Edit: Nah, makes sense both ways 🤔
And you think religion was the main driver behind the British Empire?
The main driver? I've no idea. I expect it was probably a factor though.
I beg to differ, power and wealth was, not religion.
Differ all you like, it's the same thing. Power, wealth and control is the entire point of most organised religions. Well known for being modest affairs, churches.
Okay, you have decided to ignore the word ‘relative’.
If by "relative" you mean "bugger all" then yes. Otherwise you are as deluded as those who claim the British Empire was all sunshine and roses. The Ottomans could be a very unpleasant bunch who ruled by violence if necessary.
Since you mention the East India company that is one interesting difference between what became the British Empire and most other empires. In most cases it was driven by the state but for the British Empire it was mostly commercial groups with some state backing. It only became the British Empire after those groups screwed up once too often.
So where is the evidence that Muslims were “happily” slaughtering each other for centuries because of a schism in Islam?
I was responding to some of your other claims so I feel no need to defend other peoples positions.
Although I would have thought a cursory grasp of history would result in you knowing there has been a lot of bloodshed between the various Muslim groupings especially Shia and Sunni. Whether that counts as "happy" or not is questionable but it was certainly bloody.
Otherwise you are as deluded as those who claim the British Empire was all sunshine and roses.
Some impressive allegations there dissonance.
A month ago:
ernielynch
Full MemberRees Mogg on tv last night arguing that the countries who were subject to Britain’s imperialism actually were better off for it.
Was he? I missed that. The reality:
“From the 1st century AD to the start of British colonisation in India in the 17th century, India’s GDP was between about 25 and 35% of the world’s total GDP, which dropped to 2% by Independence of India in 1947.”
And furthermore India has not experienced a single major famine since it gained independence in 1947, despite reoccurring famines which killed millions under the British Raj.
The reason India was considered the jewel in the crown of the British Empire was because India brought so much wealth to Britian, but India was systematically plundered and de-industrialised by Britian.
Posted 1 month ago
REPLY | REPORT
As a single man in his late 40s I've noticed a real increase in the amount of "woke" women my age. I was chatting to an attractive lady on Friday night until she came out as a chemtrails believer. No thank you!
but he was definitely a believer in a version of the Christian god
I'm pretty sure the 3-in-1 bit is pretty fundamental to that ? FFS Saint Dominic was sainted for genociding the Albigensians ?
The point of this is there is a world (universe) of difference between a belief the/our universe was created by some sky fairy or fairies... (aliens/gods) that may or may not give a toss and that muttering magic words over some bread (etc.) literally change it to flesh?
until they get started on 5g, and controlling governments, vaccines, cashless societies.
Does "controlling governments" count as a conspiracy theory?
Cashless society? Again how is that a conspiracy theory? Assuming you mean paperless cash not some Star Trek "we did away with money centuries ago".
The point of this is there is a world (universe) of difference between a belief the/our universe was created by some sky fairy or fairies… (aliens/gods) that may or may not give a toss and that muttering magic words over some bread (etc.) literally change it to flesh?
Have you ever tried DMT or ahuayusca?
I’ve noticed a real increase in the amount of “woke” women my age. I was chatting to an attractive lady on Friday night until she came out as a chemtrails believer
you're confusing "woke" with "nuts"
Agree, that's not woke.
Happy to be described as woke personally if it winds up the right folk, but believing in conspiracy theories doesn't make you woke, that's something else entirely.
Also a single man in his late 40s, it was easier a few years back to avoid the nutters as they would bleat on about not having the vaccine.
Also a single man in his late 40s, it was easier a few years back to avoid the nutters as they would bleat on about not having the vaccine.
Probably wise to avoid women who don't want a little prick. 😁
Cashless society? Again how is that a conspiracy theory? Assuming you mean paperless cash not some Star Trek “we did away with money centuries ago”.
In Chicago a couple of years back I got approached by a beggar (Chicago is lovely but it is awash with panhandlers for some reason). I said "I'm sorry, I'm from England, we did away with money years ago." He was like "gosh, wow, sorry, I had no idea!"
Already a hero because of his recordings but this was an interesting perspective on it. Quite a long series of tweets, original and a threadreader version linked.
Short version is conspiracy theorists can get in the sea. Where they will be eaten by legendary Seamonsters (just thought of that and had to squeeze it in)
https://twitter.com/electricalWSOP/status/1670505490126602242
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1670505490126602242.html
