Sunday 21st of April 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

eureka...

eureka...

As mentioned many times on this site, science was not born because scientists believed in a rational god that had created a rational universe, nor was their role, despite what Kepler said, to be "priests of the most high God" to discover the laws of this universe.



Science existed despite the religious dogma. Science started way before the existence of Christianity, though it often was not correct due to lack of investigation and the wrongness of some philosophers who believed that reason was good enough to understand the world. Science was also plagued by arcane practices, including alchemy which to some extend worked, but the analytical essence was missing thus ended in strange beliefs.

D. James Kennedy said: "The founders of all the major branches of science were professed believers in Jesus." Balls! says Gus. Actually I am a bit harsh here. Most of the "official" blokes (no women here in the early days) who indulged in early sciences HAD TO BE Christian in order to be "accredited". 

You don't believe in God? You don't get cash from the king's coffers to do "research" was the ticket. In those days, one could not exist in important roles, be a king, astronomer, "scientist" or a war general, unless one was sanctioned by the church. Thus those who investigated the universe and the way nature worked had to be "believers". 

Not for long.

The revival of sciences at the end of the dark ages was mostly due to men questioning idiotic godly teachings that did not make sense — teachings of a draconian church run by men in golden hats. 

The inquisition into Galileo Galilei was a cause celebre that told the pope and his priests that the earth was not the centre of the universe as had been decreed by the church.

It took nearly 500 years for the church to acknowledge that Galileo was correct. Why did the church acknowledged this, "eventually"? Because, it had lost traction. The church was loosing the debate of religion versus science. So, the geezers in religious devious minds decided to bring science under the religious dogmatic tent. These religious idiotic nuts are still pushing the barrow, but despite what they claim, science did not develop because of the church but it did despite the church.  

"Kivel blames Christianity for the wars in the Middle East. It's all the missionaries' fault. Huh? I don't suppose Islam has anything to do with the wars in the Middle East. Enough said.
Did Kivel use a microphone to blast the Christian church? Did he have a lightbulb by which he could see his speech? Christianity played a major role in the development of modern science."

In this diatribe, Dr. Jerry Newcombe tries to link oranges and his belief that they are apples.

The electric light was not invented because Jesus saw the light but because Thomas Edison wanted to make money as well as win his battle of inventions over Tesla. Even on this score, it took another 100 years for the miffed Americans to somewhat acknowledge that Tesla had won, especially with his alternative current being adopted worldwide against the dangerous direct current supply Edison system. But the Amwereecans still glorified Edison and ignored Telsa for many years, until now, when new electric cars are named after Tesla, not after Edison.

Someone like Isaac Newton was an alchemist as well as a heretic who did not believe in the trinity, but he hid these traits from officialdom. By the end of the eighteenth century, 99 per cent of real scientists were not god botherers. Half were agnostics, the other quite fiercely atheists. Someone like Laplace was an atheist.

I admit that the idea of god is an easy concept for simpletons to gobble. Don't ask questions or your little brain will blow a gasket. But it is erroneous concept which still has no place in sciences, nor in philosophy. Science is actually hard work. It demands to make a leap into the proven uncertainty.

So the god botherers still push their erroneous slanted version of scientific discovery and historical events in order to glorify their idiotic beliefs. 

"Kivel blames Christianity for the wars in the Middle East. It's all the missionaries' fault. Huh? I don't suppose Islam has anything to do with the wars in the Middle East. Enough said."

This is a very simplistic crappy view of a troubling history. "Enough said?" Geez, you would think that the battles for Jerusalem never happen or were the exclusive faults of the Mosleems... 

Now for the crux of the matter:
"Education for the masses was a gift of Christianity to the world. This is especially true after the Reformation. The Reformers knew for their message to stick, people would have to read the Bible for themselves." 

No mention of scientific books here. And as far as science is concerned, the present religious mob are a bit choosy.

Soon many of the educators decided that PUBLIC education had to come online to prevent this exclusive proselytising which was designed to keep young minds away for the scientific reality.

Imagine. The religious mob are still fighting the reality of "evolution" and often describe global warming as a godless communist plot. They are ridiculously trying to adopt and reject science at the same time to make it fit into their little box. It's stupido.

As D. James Kennedy and I point out in our book, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?, the founders of all the major branches of science were professed believers in Jesus.

Bollocks. The real shame is "had Jesus not been born", science and our understanding of the universe WOULD HAVE most likely DEVELOPED FAR SOONER. 

 

the religious supremacists...

 

In Matthew 28:18, Jesus says, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." This verse is seen as an announcement by Jesus that he has assumed authority over all earthly authority. In that light, some theologians interpret the Great Commission as a command to exercise that authority in his name, bringing all things (including societies and cultures) into subjection under his commands. Rousas John Rushdoony, for example, interpreted the Great Commission as a republication of the "creation mandate",[26] referring to Genesis 1:28

Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing...

For Rushdoony, the idea of dominion implied a form of Christian theocracy or, more accurately, a theonomy. For example, he wrote that:

The purpose of Christ's coming was in terms of the creation mandate… The redeemed are called to the original purpose of man, to exercise dominion under God, to be covenant-keepers, and to fulfil "the righteousness of the law" (Rom. 8:4)… Man is summoned to create the society God requires.[27]

Elsewhere he wrote:

The man who is being progressively sanctified will inescapably sanctify his home, school, politics, economics, science, and all things else by understanding and interpreting all things in terms of the word of God.[28]

According to sociologist and professor of religion William Martin, author of With God on Our Side:

It is difficult to assess the influence of Reconstructionist thought with any accuracy. Because it is so genuinely radical, most leaders of the Religious Right are careful to distance themselves from it. At the same time, it clearly holds some appeal for many of them. One undoubtedly spoke for others when he confessed, 'Though we hide their books under the bed, we read them just the same.' In addition, several key leaders have acknowledged an intellectual debt to the theonomists. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy have endorsed Reconstructionist books. Rushdoony has appeared on Kennedy's television program and the 700 Club several times. Pat Robertson makes frequent use of 'dominion' language; his book, The Secret Kingdom, has often been cited for its theonomy elements; and pluralists were made uncomfortable when, during his presidential campaign, he said he 'would only bring Christians and Jews into the government,' as well as when he later wrote, 'There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.' And Jay Grimstead, who leads the Coalition on Revival, which brings Reconstructionists together with more mainstream evangelicals, has said, 'I don't call myself [a Reconstructionist],' but 'A lot of us are coming to realize that the Bible is God's standard of morality … in all points of history … and for all societies, Christian and non-Christian alike… It so happens that Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and North understood that sooner.' He added, 'There are a lot of us floating around in Christian leadership—James Kennedy is one of them—who don't go all the way with the theonomy thing, but who want to rebuild America based on the Bible.'[29]

 

Yep, Jesus did not invent the light-bulb...

 

 

Gus: Mixing morality and sciences is crap. The morality from the the religious mob is crap. two craps don't make one good. Science is good.

here's some deranged twaddle...

 

 

Here is some deranged religious twaddle...:

 

What are Christians to make of the modern human rights movement? The issue has recently been brought into sharp focus by a Queensland Parliamentary Inquiry into a Charter of Rights.

How can Christians possibly reconcile the self-referential human rights either with the example of a founder who gave up His right to life to offer eternal life to others?

Or, let me give a pointed example from some of His followers. What would human rights advocates make of Johann Dober and David Nitschmann, the eighteenth century Moravian Brethren who, in order to share their eternal hope with Caribbean slaves, sold themselves to a plantation owner who had forbidden missionaries to enter his island?

This apparent contradiction leads me to wonder what central truths we may unwittingly jettison in our haste to jump on the human rights band-wagon.

Rights-based regimes that derive their origins in individual existence entail, in their full extension, the danger of ultimate alienation: a world in which the solitary agent is left alone to assert rights against other individuals and institutions in a vacuum absent of agreed values. In this vacuum the point at which communal relation begins, and by which it is thereafter characterised, is the interaction between self-directed rights.

In furthering the project of pluralistic multiculturalism, has the West abandoned the hope of a unifying vision of the good only to replace it with a rights-based society which finds its common vision in the lowest possible common denominator, that each individual should have maximised the ability to assert their own claim to a right? If so, we are left with a society in which contest is at the core

 


--------- blah blah blah lots of blah blah blah... conclusion:


Expressing some heavenly mystery, Christianity upholds the dignity of the human being, not through the assertion of self, but through sacrifice - effected both individually and corporately. It offers a much richer source of cohesive values than the thin veneer of pure human rights clashing in a vacuum of values blinded by their own self-referential gravitational forces.

My hope is that our society continues to enable space for the truth that, in that great cosmic irony, promises temporal and eternal freedom to those that offer their lives as a living sacrifice.

Mark Fowler is the chair of CLEAR International Australia Ltd, a charity partnering with Christian lawyers societies in Australia, the United Kingdom and in East Africa to progress human rights and the rule of law in the developing world. He is a PhD candidate in the University of Queensland School of Law, where his research focuses on religious freedom and tax frameworks. He is a Director at Neumann & Turnour Lawyers, Brisbane. Mark is also a member of the Queensland Law Society Human Rights Working Group. His views are his own and don't represent the Society.


read more: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/05/11/4460498.htm



Here we can only pray that god is an atheist. God could not believe in Himself (god is a male) along those lines, could he? What a lot of twaddle. Sacrifice? What is sacrifice? Giving your life up so someone else can live somewhere else? Can someone seriously really write "thin veneer of pure human rights clashing in a vacuum of values blinded by their own self-referential gravitational forces" without dropping an iron anvil on their right foot?

How ridiculous one can be with beliefs that do not make any sense ! God does not exist — if he did he would cry in his porridge reading Fowler's nonsense... 

... "space for the truth that, in that great cosmic irony, promises temporal and eternal freedom to those that offer their lives as a living sacrifice." ARE YOU SERIOUS?

Is Mark Fowler a satirist?

 

is the pope a secularist?...

 

‘State must be secular, single-religion states end badly’ – Pope Francis to French Catholic paper

Published time: 17 May, 2016 06:10
Pope Francis believes that a healthy secularism paired with a strong law that grants above all a religious freedom is the key to a successful and peaceful state, while states tied to a single religion don’t have a future.

“Confessional states end badly…I believe that secularism accompanied by a strong law which guarantees religious freedom provides a framework for moving forward,” the Pontiff said in an interview with Guillaume Goubert, director of French Roman Catholic newspaper La Croix.


Addressing increasing worries of Christians that Islam is becoming ever more widespread in Europe, Pope Francis says that everyone has a right to exercise the religion he or she chooses, and a secular state as opposed to a single-religion one can grant this opportunity.

“We are all equal, as sons of God or [creations] of our personal dignity. But everyone should have the freedom to exercise their own faith. If a Muslim woman wants to wear a hijab, she should be able to. Similarly so, if a Catholic wants to wear a cross. We must have an opportunity to profess our faith not on the sidelines of the [national] culture but within it,” Francis said.


He mildly criticized France in this regard, where concerns over Islam and its confusion with extremism have been spreading exponentially following terror attacks that rocked its capital. 


“The small criticism I’ll be addressing to France in this regard is that France exaggerates secularism. This stems from a way of considering religion as a subculture and not a whole culture. France should take a step forward on this issue to accept that openness to transcendence is everyone’s right.”

When asked about current controversial social issues, such as the legality of euthanasia or same-sex marriages, the Pontiff once again stated that social issues must be dealt with by secular authorities, but that people's personal beliefs and convictions should be respected when a certain law is adopted.

“It is the parliament that must discuss, argue, explain, reason. Thus the society will evolve and grow. But when the law is passed, the state must respect [religious beliefs]. In each legal structure, objections of conscience must be present for it is a human right. Including for a government official, who is also a human being,” Francis said, adding that a truly secular state cannot exist without criticism and respect for its people and their beliefs.

“The state must respect criticism. That is true secularism,” Francis said.

https://www.rt.com/news/343258-pope-french-catholic-paper/

 

Read from top

read also: http://www.la-croix.com/Religion/Pape/Le-pape-Francois-a-La-Croix-Un-Etat-doit-etre-laique-2016-05-16-1200760526