What The Bible Is About

Posted June 11

 God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. The word Holy means sacred, or belonging to God. Spirit means an invisible active force, like wind, breath, mental inclination. Something that we can't see but that produces results that we can see. The first thing that was created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon. Then everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve. 

The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence. 

By the time man was created the angels had already reached their potential. 

On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." This doesn't mean that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done.  When we would have accomplished this we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period, of creation continues to this day.  So the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3,  King James Version

 

1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

 

 

The above portion of Semmelweis Reflex's opening post comes under the scope of Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3. 

 

None of the events described above were seen by human eyes.  Things not seen by human eyes are accepted as true and real by faith.  There exists no physical evidence to corroborate or authenticate them.  That is why faith is used by believers to understand how the worlds were framed (created) by god speaking them into existence.   According to faith, the things which human eyes do see (the physical world around us) were formed by unseen things.  Specifically, god.

 

The upshot of applying Hebrews to Semmelweis Reflex's introduction is simply this.  

 

Everything he writes about, everything he claims happened and everything he explains rests upon the foundation of his faith.  Not on facts.  Not on physical evidence.  Not on anything that can be verified, authenticated of confirmed from scientific investigation.  Not on the basis of any oral history and not on the basis of any eyewitness accounts.  No human saw the the events he believes in by faith.  And since the physical world which we can see and touch and examine was, according to scripture, made from unseen things, there is no possibility of ever using what we can see, touch and examine to discover if Semmelweis Reflex's belief are true.

 

This immediately flags up three questions.

 

 

1. 

Why should his faith-based understanding of prehistory be any more accurate than that of another Christian's faith-based understanding of the same period?

 

2.

Why should his Christian faith-based understanding be any more accurate than that of the faith-based understanding of a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew?

 

3.

Which is more likely to be objectively true and trustworthy - a faith-based understanding of prehistory that cannot be tested or measured or a scientific understanding that relies upon testing and measurement?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Re-bumped for David's attention.

6 hours ago, WalterP said:

1. 

Why should his faith-based understanding of prehistory be any more accurate than that of another Christian's faith-based understanding of the same period?

 

It shouldn't. One should never attempt to silence one's own critics. To do so says perhaps more than one's own words. 

 

6 hours ago, WalterP said:

2.

Why should his Christian faith-based understanding be any more accurate than that of the faith-based understanding of a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew?

 

Or Buddhist, Confucianist, Hinduist, Scientologist, Shinto or Taoist. The more important question might be why should they strive to negate another's understanding instead of embrace the understanding? Are your questions designed to increase my understanding or promote your own above those you appear to defend? 

 

6 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

3.

Which is more likely to be objectively true and trustworthy - a faith-based understanding of prehistory that cannot be tested or measured or a scientific understanding that relies upon testing and measurement?

 

Earlier somewhere on the forum I posted a 2009 conversation I had on the SAB forum with my favorite and most skilled atheist adversary Rambo. I posted as guest in this thread about Bible Chronology, dating and secular confirmation. 

 

Show me what you've posted, if you would please. If not, respond to my testing and measuring displayed in that thread. You people (collectively the regular posters here on this forum) keep presenting me as being tyrannical, myopic, uneducated and uninformed simply because I don't come to the same conclusion you have come to, apparently. I have only my own words to defend myself because I have seen nothing but criticism from you. No alternative. 

 

To me, your message seems to be directed at those who you perceive as entering recently into the paradigm you yourself appear, and I mean only appear, to be confident in. 

 

I'm not hearing your side of the story and that's why I'm here. I'm looking for exchange, not a doctorial rule on truth and trustworthiness. Do I appear to anyone here to be presenting myself in a manner which says: 'Trust me.' Am I all pleasantries and a wolf in sheep's clothing? My fangs are clearly exposed but my ears are standing straight up but you aren't my enemy. Religion, the opiate of the masses is.  

 

 

6 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Re-bumped for David's attention.

 

Thank you. I appreciate your usually thoughtful comments. 

  8 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

1. 

Why should his faith-based understanding of prehistory be any more accurate than that of another Christian's faith-based understanding of the same period?

 

It shouldn't. One should never attempt to silence one's own critics. To do so says perhaps more than one's own words. 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thank you for your honesty, David.

 

So what we have here is a level playing field, populated by many, many people claiming to have a 'true and correct' faith-based understanding of the prehistoric period that their understanding of the bible is based upon.  

 

That being so, I wonder why I should accept your understanding over anyone else's?

 

If you can offer me nothing more than self recommendation and your disparagement of the others, then, because all of the others can and have done the same things, I'm still faced with a multitude of equally plausible options.

 

Any ideas how we can proceed?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

Without snark or sarcasm here is a bit about me:

 

I was raised by two parents, one grew up very poor, was on welfare , and at some point a travelling minister came to town and told Mom's parental unit that, though they were collecting a welfare check that they should tithe 10% of it..to him....So growing up, Mom didnt have anything nice to say about religion. I would call her atheist. She said, "When you die, you go into a box..end of story." 

 

Dad had gone to church but was allowed to quit if he wanted to at age 15. So he did. He knew some of the bible. Both of them, especially Dad talked bad about Christianity and were champions of taking care of themselves. Dad was described as an agnostic. 

 

So I grew up with that mindset. As a teen I did have an interest in astral projection and new age stuff and then I discovered Eastern thought and was quite fascinated by it. Then I married a Christian and became a believer in Jesus too. Our family went to a Pentecostal church twice a week, and participated in some of the events. Still, Eastern philosophy was more interesting to me. We were told we should 'read our bibles' and so I did...though it was pretty boring. I actually found several places where Zen and the bible met...I am that I am.....did I not say you are gods...kingdom of god is inside you ...etc etc. 

 

But after 10 years I got divorced. Stopped going to that church because the ex went there. And after a while of not going to any church, the Jesus programming wore off. When you stop studying something that doesnt ever make itself obvious in reality then it fades away. 

 

I actually was just left with some guilt for continuing to say Goddamit while saying "Sorry, God" numerous times a day. I also read porn magazines....and then felt guilty ... for having natural God given sexual urges. So after a while of dealing with this nonsense I told God, "bye bye. It is absurd to apologize for saying Goddammit all day long or read porn." God said the usual ....nothing. Yes, I quit so I could sin...since I was 'sinning' anyway. And not really deriving any benefit from the belief system. 

 

A new age book had a piece of wisdom that helped destroy the mental illness that is Christianity. It said, "If you are doing something that makes you feel guilty, either stop doing it....or stop feeling guilty about it." So I stopped feeling guilty about it. 

 

I continued on with occasional Zen practice or book reading. Then found ex-christian.net and discovered that most people seem to quit their Christian belief because there is no evidence for God. A book isnt evidence. It's just a story, like Harry Potter. I also was able to articulate the concept that Christianity consists of fear, guilt and shame. The ex, at one time said that Christianity was a big guilt trip, and she was a lifelong believer. 

 

I've learned enough about the bible from the atheists here and probably done more bible googling as an ex-Christian than I ever did as a Christian. I dont resonate with the bible and find it uninteresting. While Jesus may be real, he doesnt seem to make an effort. I've made enough effort. 

 

I  understand you (Semm) like the bible and Jesus , I suppose. Well, enjoy. To each his own.

 

 

  9 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

2.

Why should his Christian faith-based understanding be any more accurate than that of the faith-based understanding of a Muslim, a Sikh or a Jew?

 

Or Buddhist, Confucianist, Hinduist, Scientologist, Shinto or Taoist. The more important question might be why should they strive to negate another's understanding instead of embrace the understanding? Are your questions designed to increase my understanding or promote your own above those you appear to defend? 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

David,

 

It seems that once again we are back at the level playing of things not seen by human eyes but believed by faith.  There being no viable way to choose from a multitude of options.

 

I cannot answer your question about any of the belief systems listed above.  If anything, an answer would seem to spring from your declaration that each person is solely responsible for what they believe.  That being so, to discover why each of these different types of believer strive to negate each other's understanding, you would have to question each one of them, individually, asking them why their beliefs require them to negate the understanding of others.

 

As to your last question, you have phrased it as false dilemma.

 

 https://fallacyinlogic.com/false-dilemma-definition-and-examples/

 

You offer me two options, when there are more.

 

Perhaps you should rephrase your question in a less fallacious way?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

3.

Which is more likely to be objectively true and trustworthy - a faith-based understanding of prehistory that cannot be tested or measured or a scientific understanding that relies upon testing and measurement?

 

Earlier somewhere on the forum I posted a 2009 conversation I had on the SAB forum with my favorite and most skilled atheist adversary Rambo. I posted as guest in this thread about Bible Chronology, dating and secular confirmation. 

 

Show me what you've posted, if you would please. If not, respond to my testing and measuring displayed in that thread. You people (collectively the regular posters here on this forum) keep presenting me as being tyrannical, myopic, uneducated and uninformed simply because I don't come to the same conclusion you have come to, apparently. I have only my own words to defend myself because I have seen nothing but criticism from you. No alternative. 

 

To me, your message seems to be directed at those who you perceive as entering recently into the paradigm you yourself appear, and I mean only appear, to be confident in. 

 

I'm not hearing your side of the story and that's why I'm here. I'm looking for exchange, not a doctorial rule on truth and trustworthiness. Do I appear to anyone here to be presenting myself in a manner which says: 'Trust me.' Am I all pleasantries and a wolf in sheep's clothing? My fangs are clearly exposed but my ears are standing straight up but you aren't my enemy. Religion, the opiate of the masses is.  

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

David,

 

I put a relatively simple and straightforward question to you that was brief and succinctly stated.  Asking me to visit a different forum and read through 47 posts doesn't seem to me to be any kind of answer to it.  Instead of applying yourself to the task of composing an answer to my question you've transferred the workload over to me.  

 

It seems that rather than treating this dialogue as a meeting of equals where we do each other the common courtesy of answering each others questions, you appear to be trying to wrest control of it by making me do something you are quite capable of.  In that spirit, I won't be showing you what I've posted and asking you to work your way through it.  

 

 

'No alternative?'

 

Who are you to dictate the terms and conditions under which our dialogue takes place?  We are equals in this forum and neither you nor I have the right or the authority to dictate how the other should or shouldn't conduct themselves.

 

David, you aren't hearing my side of the story because I'm not interested in yours and so, treating you as an equal, I won't be telling you anything much about me.  

 

You say that you're looking for exchange and not a doctorial rule on truth and trustworthiness.  But my question is all about trustworthiness, so once again, you seem to be railroading the topic into what you want it to be be, avoiding what is actually being asked.

 

If you aren't prepared to answer it, that's fine.  I can live with that.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.  

 

 

 

 

40 minutes ago, WalterP said:

3.

Which is more likely to be objectively true and trustworthy - a faith-based understanding of prehistory that cannot be tested or measured or a scientific understanding that relies upon testing and measurement?

I put a relatively simple and straightforward question to you that was brief and succinctly stated.  Asking me to visit a different forum and read through 47 posts doesn't seem to me to be any kind of answer to it.  Instead of applying yourself to the task of composing an answer to my question you've transferred the workload over to me.  

 

Why do you ask this question? Prehistory is speculated upon by science and the Bible so I assume that you are comparing the two. First of all that seems silly to me. The Bible claims divine inspiration and briefly states the creation of the heavens and earth. Science investigates the creation in detail. Does science need the creation account of the Bible to investigate? Certainly not. If examination of the Bible depends upon faith does it need science for the examination? Certainly not. Does either one negate the other? No. You may suggest it does from an ideological perspective but really it doesn't. 

 

If the nature of your simple question is to determine which one should be more significant than the other, my simple answer is no. That's my opinion. They both have something to say. If the question asks should one be free to chose my answer is yes. So what is your problem? 

 

The link I gave you is my own personal efforts at measuring the faith based. If your question is to determine which is more trustworthy you can't look at them as being the same. If one has faith in the Creator, Jehovah God, as I do, then the Bible is far more trustworthy but my own examination of it may not be trustworthy. I prefer to think my examination is unlikely to be trustworthy though the Bible to be somewhat trustworthy. The original writings given to the people of a specific time were inspired, but the translation and my interpretation isn't. 

 

I wouldn't use the Bible to figure out how to put up a satellite. Nor would I use science to determine the validity of the Bible. 

 

Investigating with science as a tool means that in all likelihood it is wrong. That isn't a bad thing. In testing and measuring one isn't being particularly reasonable to think the process takes place without error. The point is to get more knowledge through, primarily, error. To suggest that science is settled regarding anything is a desperate attempt to replace religion with religion. It is the turning of one into the other and that, not only gives one a false hope without faith, but it also distorts the purpose of science. It tarnishes it. 

 

The link was an example of my having applied myself to the task. I don't need your approval for that, I merely offer it as an example.

 

Quote

It seems that rather than treating this dialogue as a meeting of equals where we do each other the common courtesy of answering each others questions, you appear to be trying to wrest control of it by making me do something you are quite capable of.  In that spirit, I won't be showing you what I've posted and asking you to work your way through it.  

 

This dialogue of equals was not only answering your question but hopefully inspiring you to do the same on your own. You seem to be blaming me vicariously for your own inadequacies. You won't show me what you've posted because you haven't posted anything but criticism of me. You think that is good enough because you want someone else to think for you. Just not me. Speak for yourself. The investigation of science and examination of the Bible is up to you. You and I can only share that.  

 

 

18 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Why do you ask this question? Prehistory is speculated upon by science and the Bible so I assume that you are comparing the two. First of all that seems silly to me. The Bible claims divine inspiration and briefly states the creation of the heavens and earth. Science investigates the creation in detail. Does science need the creation account of the Bible to investigate? Certainly not. If examination of the Bible depends upon faith does it need science for the examination? Certainly not. Does either one negate the other? No. You may suggest it does from an ideological perspective but really it doesn't. 

 

I'm sorry David but you are wrong here.

 

Science does not speculate about prehistory.  It infers what prehistory was like from the available evidence.  These inferences are then tested by the making of predictions.  If these predictions are confirmed then that is taken to be valid knowledge about prehistory.

 

Here is a famous example.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#/media/File:Cmbr.svg

 

The black body spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (blue line) was calculated from first principles, working on the assumption that the universe is many billions of years old.  The series of red crosses following that line are the data from the COBE satellite. 

 

You will see that the calculated prediction and the observed data match exactly.

 

From this exact match scientists infer that the very early universe was exactly as was predicted.  Therefore, the universe itself is telling us from its most ancient light, that it is 13.7 billion years old.  If the Bible says that the universe is any other age, then the Bible and science do not agree.

 

One will negate the other.

 

If this is ideology, then you share in it and use it every day, David.  How do you think you are reading these words, if not by the application of the scientific principles used the world over, by billions of people.  

 

18 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

If the nature of your simple question is to determine which one should be more significant than the other, my simple answer is no. That's my opinion. They both have something to say. If the question asks should one be free to chose my answer is yes. So what is your problem? 

 

They both seem to have conflicting things to say, David.

 

My question was not about ones freedom to choose, but about which was more trustworthy... and why.

 

By the definition given in Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3, things not seen by human eyes must be accepted as true by faith.  But when such things are challenged by the confirmed predictions of science, what should one do?  That is what my question seeks to explore.

 

18 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

The link I gave you is my own personal efforts at measuring the faith based. If your question is to determine which is more trustworthy you can't look at them as being the same. If one has faith in the Creator, Jehovah God, as I do, then the Bible is far more trustworthy but my own examination of it may not be trustworthy. I prefer to think my examination is unlikely to be trustworthy though the Bible to be somewhat trustworthy. The original writings given to the people of a specific time were inspired, but the translation and my interpretation isn't. 

 

I respect your choice to believe what you want David, but surely by depending upon science every hour of the day, you are actually demonstrating your trust in it?  By depending upon it to live as you choose to do?  

 

18 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

I wouldn't use the Bible to figure out how to put up a satellite. Nor would I use science to determine the validity of the Bible. 

 

Then how do you reconcile what science says about the age of the universe and what scripture says about the same thing?

 

18 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

Investigating with science as a tool means that in all likelihood it is wrong. That isn't a bad thing. In testing and measuring one isn't being particularly reasonable to think the process takes place without error. The point is to get more knowledge through, primarily, error. To suggest that science is settled regarding anything is a desperate attempt to replace religion with religion. It is the turning of one into the other and that, not only gives one a false hope without faith, but it also distorts the purpose of science. It tarnishes it. 

 

The link was an example of my having applied myself to the task. I don't need your approval for that, I merely offer it as an example.

 

I never asked for your approval or anyone else's.  Stop putting words in my mouth.  And stop imputing to me motives and agendas that spring solely from your own mind.

 

18 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

 

This dialogue of equals was not only answering your question but hopefully inspiring you to do the same on your own. You seem to be blaming me vicariously for your own inadequacies. You won't show me what you've posted because you haven't posted anything but criticism of me. You think that is good enough because you want someone else to think for you. Just not me. Speak for yourself. The investigation of science and examination of the Bible is up to you. You and I can only share that.  

 

 

 

I do not seek or need you to inspire me.

 

Once again you are assuming that you are superior to me and that you have some right to dictate how I should be inspired on your terms.  We are equals in this forum, David.  I don't tell you what should inspire or motivate you and you don't do the same to me, ok?

 

But, if you really want to see something I've written about the relationship of science and the bible, then please go here.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

51 minutes ago, WalterP said:

Science does not speculate about prehistory.  It infers what prehistory was like from the available evidence.  These inferences are then tested by the making of predictions.  If these predictions are confirmed then that is taken to be valid knowledge about prehistory.

 

From this exact match scientists infer that the very early universe was exactly as was predicted.  Therefore, the universe itself is telling us from its most ancient light, that it is 13.7 billion years old.  If the Bible says that the universe is any other age, then the Bible and science do not agree.

 

One will negate the other.

 

Only by transmogrifying both. In trying to establish the trustworthiness of one over the other without allowing for the obvious possibilities of errors in the interpretation of one and the calculations of the others. 

 

Let's test this in a very simple way. The Bible was thought to state the age of the universe. That was an incorrect interpretation. How many times, in the last hundred years has the estimation of the age of the universe by science changed? 

 

 

51 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

If this is ideology, then you share in it and use it every day, David.  How do you think you are reading these words, if not by the application of the scientific principles used the world over, by billions of people.  

 

When I fly in a plane it defies the mocking of scientific principles used at one time to establish that flight was impossible. Science laughs at innovation until is works and then it measures the success often stealing the credit along with it like you just did. 

 

All of my life the effectiveness of vaccines was inferred in the name of science until the 2017 World Health Organization concluded that vaccines were insignificant. Follow the science people demanded. But what science had been done? Leave science to scientists?

 

Who funded, published and promoted vaccines?

 

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

 

Only by transmogrifying both. In trying to establish the trustworthiness of one over the other without allowing for the obvious possibilities of errors in the interpretation of one and the calculations of the others. 

 

Let's test this in a very simple way. The Bible was thought to state the age of the universe. That was an incorrect interpretation. How many times, in the last hundred years has the estimation of the age of the universe by science changed? 

 

As many times as demanded by the arrival of new evidence.

 

You are making a strawman argument David, if you are suggesting that science deals in absolute truth.  Science never, ever deals in that and never, ever claims to.  Science is imply the best explanation of a given thing, according to the currently available evidence.  No more and no less than that.

 

It is religion that claims to have a lock on absolute truth.

 

Do not impute to science that which religion claims for itself!

 

 

54 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

 

 

When I fly in a plane it defies the mocking of scientific principles used at one time to establish that flight was impossible. Science laughs at innovation until is works and then it measures the success often stealing the credit along with it like you just did. 

 

This is false and you are wrong.

 

Any scientist worth their salt will acknowledge that science is a dynamic, everchanging process.  Sure, certain scientists claim that this or that is currently not possible.  But science is a human endeavour and humans are inherently fallible.  

 

Yesterday's scientific principles are overturned by today's discoveries.  So what?

 

 

54 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

All of my life the effectiveness of vaccines was inferred in the name of science until the 2017 World Health Organization concluded that vaccines were insignificant. Follow the science people demanded. But what science had been done? Leave science to scientists?

 

Who funded, published and promoted vaccines?

 

 

 

 

Not going to be drawn into any conspiracy theory talk by you.

 

 

 

Does the number 176 have any significance for you, David? 

 

No? 

 

Well, that's the number of times you've CONFIDENTLY used science to make posts in this forum. 

 

You see?  You rely upon it ALL THE TIME.

 

You're a man living a double life.  Hourly using, relying and depending upon the very thing you claim to have little or no confidence in and doing it 24/7, all year round.  

 

The true measure of what a person really trusts isn't what they say, it's how they live.

 

Claim that you don't trust in and live by all the benefits science gives you and you'll be a...

 

...liar and a hypocrite.

 

 

Walter.

49 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You will need to provide a citation, from the World Health Organization, that supports this claim.  I'm not asking.

 

David,

 

If I were you I'd take what the RedneckProfessor has told you to do, very seriously.

 

He's a scientist specialising in epidemiology.

 

Think about it.

 

 

https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization#tab=tab_1

 

Per the WHO: Immunization is a key component of primary health care and an indisputable human right. It’s also one of the best health investments money can buy. Vaccines are also critical to the prevention and control of infectious-disease outbreaks. They underpin global health security and will be a vital tool in the battle against antimicrobial resistance.

 

 

WHO is working with countries and partners to improve global vaccination coverage, through the “Global Vaccine Action Plan 2011-2020”.

 

https://www.who.int/health-topics/vaccines-and-immunization#tab=tab_3

 

 

I have not read any post in this thread. So sue me :))

.    Just here to make the cliche, probably made obs - If I hade a nickel for every time someone told me what the Bible is really about, well, I'd be a poor man bk I don t have the patience to listen to that line of arguments anymore :))

28 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@SemmelweisReflex

I trust you have enjoyed the 2.5 hour dispensation of grace I have granted you.  Unfortunately, the time has now come for me to handle my business with you.

 

You are more than welcome to express alternative opinions about religion, beliefs, theological doctrines, and scriptural interpretations on this website.  You are not welcome to disparage lifesaving medical treatments on this website by appealing to an authority that is not yours.  This website will not be used that way.

The appeal to authority is not the issue though. The deceitful appeal to authority is, isn't it? I mean saying X institution said that with no backing.

28 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

If you had said, "In my personal opinion, vaccines are insignificant," that would have done little more than further demonstrate the deranged ignorance you have displayed here in such abundance that none of us would have given it a second thought.  But you attempted to shoehorn the full weight of the World Health Organization behind your conspiratorial fucknuttery.  In doing so, you crossed a dangerous line.

 

Words have consequences, even if you choose to ignore them.  Another person, with no more intelligence than you have displayed, might take your words at face value; and, with no more intellectual integrity than you have, that person might not pursue their due diligence in researching the truth about vaccines.  Such a person would become a danger to themselves, their children, and their larger society.  If you will not take responsibility for your own words, then I have no choice but to take that responsibility away from you.

I do not agree with this line of argument. I mean it is the other guy's responsability. If you cannot even be bothered to research basic info about a very imp subject and take some post of an internet forum at face value you are not fit for living in a society to begin with. It is like saying well, if a girl dresses slutty, and gets raped, then she bears a large part of the blame ( I know, it's a hyperbole) . If a man has such low impulse control that he cannot help himself but rape every woman that gives him mild sexual excite ment that guy should be separated from society. This does not condone dressing like a pornstar when going to work in an IRS office.

28 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As a result, your account will be restricted until 26 June 2021.  You will not be allowed to post, nor will you be able to respond, or start any new threads.  Once the restriction expires, you will be welcome to come back and join us again, hopefully with a better understanding and a deeper respect for our community.  Please Note: you are not being banned; so you don't get to be a martyr persecuted for righteousness.  However, should you choose to run off again and not come back, I'd be just as happy as a whore in a dick tree.  (I say that tongue-in-cheek, of course; I hope you will return).

 

Enjoy your time off,

John

Take not, I do not agree with this decision. A simple warning under his post about vaccines would be enough. I mean really, no offense, but if by reading semm's post he seems to you like a reliable medical source for advice, I think you are alive just be sheer dumb luck and expect you to go to Africa to find the nigerian princess who emailed you a bunch of times.

9 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Your objection is noted, @Myrkhoos.

However, you're the boss, and one must submit to authority. :)) ( Which, by the way, seems to me the actual core principle of abrahamic religions and their scriptures, bible included, to be on topic. Simply put, the Bible is about obedience, first and foremost)