9/11 Commission Report Confirms Key Fahrenheit 9/11 Facts

[ASsman]

A bit old, but there needs to be a balance between siskos bullshit threads and some facts.

July 23rd, 2004 12:59 pm
9/11 Commission Report Confirms Key Fahrenheit 9/11 Facts

The September 11 Commission's 567-page final report has confirmed key facts presented in Fahrenheit 9/11. These include:

* Attorney General John Ashcroft told acting FBI director Thomas Pickard that he did not want to hear anything more about terrorist threats. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 265

* After Bush was informed of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, he went ahead with his classroom event. After Bush was informed that the nation was under attack after the second plane hit, Bush stayed in the classroom for nearly seven more minutes, continuing to read with the children. Confirmed, Commission Report at pp. 35, 38-39.

* Bush failed to have even one meeting to discuss the threat of terrorism with his head of counterterrorism Richard Clarke. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 201.

* Bush failed to react to the August 6, 2001 security briefing, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” Confirmed, Commission Report at pp. 260-262.

* 142 Saudis, including 24 members of the bin Laden family, were allowed to leave the country after September 13. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 556, n. 25 [Note that Fahrenheit 9/11 understates the number of Saudis who left.]

* Individuals were interviewed by the FBI before being allowed to leave (although the report confirms that most individuals on these flights were not interviewed.) Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 557, n. 28.

* White House former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke approved these flights. Confirmed, Commission Report at p. 329.

It should also be noted that the 9/11 Commission does not address or deem important a number of other issues either addressed in Fahrenheit 9/11 or revealed since completion of the film, including:

* What exactly was the rush in getting these individuals out of the country so soon after the worst attack in U.S. history, why did Saudi Royals and bin Laden family members receive such special treatment at a time when most Americans still could not get flights (even though airspace may have been open), and how exactly were the flights arranged by the U.S. government?

* Several unanswered questions posed by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) in a July 20, 2004, Grand Forks Herald column: “At a time when 14 of the 19 terrorists from Sept. 11 were Saudi citizens, how and why were six secret flights allowed to sneak 142 Saudi citizens out of the United States in the days after Sept. 11 before they were properly interrogated? How do we know they weren't properly questioned? Because Dale Watson, the No. 2 man and former head of counterterrorism at the FBI has said none of them were subjected to ‘serious’ interrogation or questions before being allowed to leave. In fact, we now know that at least two and perhaps more of the Saudis who were allowed to leave after Sept. 11 were under investigation by the FBI for alleged terrorist connections.”

* Information that came to light in Dana Milbank’s July 22, 2004 Washington Post article, including the fact that at least one bin Laden family member who was allowed to leave lived with a nephew of Osama bin Laden, who "was involved in forming the U.S. branch of the World Assembly of Muslim Youth" (WAMY), which the FBI has described as “a suspected terrorist organization,” and that the bin Ladens flew out of the country on the same airplane that “has been chartered frequently by the White House for the press corps traveling with President Bush.”

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=24

[ASsman]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/warroom/index.php?id=21

Since all you pro-bushes can't be bothered with a little research.

[Tone Capone]

INTERESTING!! (y)

[bigkidpants]

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.

"The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."
-- Usama bin Laden (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/bush-s29.shtml)

[Tone Capone]

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks.

"The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."
-- Usama bin Laden (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/bush-s29.shtml)


.....really?

[EN[i]GMA]

Small question: Why do we allow the Jews to control us? That doesn't make any sense. We have nothing to gain by backing them. It's so patently illogical. Why do all these things always trace back to Isreal?

This whole "Isreali Conspiricy" doesn't seem to hold water for me.

[Ace42]

There are many other examples, though some of those commonly invoked should be treated with caution, particularly concerning Israel. The civilian toll of Israel’s U.S.-backed invasion of Lebanon in 1982 exceeded Saddam’s in Kuwait, and it remains in violation of a 1978 Security Council resolution ordering it to withdraw forthwith from Lebanon, along with numerous others regarding Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, and other matters; and there would be far more if the U.S. did not regularly veto such resolutions. But the common charge that Israel, particularly its current government, is violating UN 242 and the Oslo Accords, and that the U.S. exhibits a "double standard" by tolerating those violations, is dubious at best, based on serious misunderstanding of these agreements. From the outset, the Madrid-Oslo process was designed and implemented by U.S.-Israeli power to impose a Bantustan-style settlement. The Arab world has chosen to delude itself about the matter, as have many others, but they are clear in the actual documents, and particularly in the U.S.-supported projects of the Rabin-Peres governments, including those for which the current Likud government is now being denounced.

It is clearly untrue to claim that "Israel is not demonstrably in violation of Security Council decrees" (New York Times), but the reasons often given should be examined carefully.

These are tendencies of considerable import, relating to the background concerns that motivate U.S. policy in the region: its insistence, since World War II, on controlling the world’s major energy reserves. As many have observed, in the Arab world there is growing fear and resentment of the long-standing Israel-Turkey alliance that was formalized in 1996, now greatly strengthened. For some years, it had been a component of the U.S. strategy of controlling the region with "local cops on the beat," as Nixon’s Defense Secretary put the matter. There is apparently a growing appreciation of the Iranian advocacy of regional security arrangements to replace U.S. domination. A related matter is the intensifying conflict over pipelines to bring Central Asian oil to the rich countries, one natural outlet being via Iran.

**And U.S. energy corporations will not be happy to see foreign rivals—now including China and Russia as well—gain privileged access to Iraqi oil reserves, second only to Saudi Arabia in scale, or to Iran’s natural gas, oil, and other resources.

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z9804-rogue.html

It's all about crude oil, and the Israelis being the only non-arab non-islamics in the region.

[EN[i]GMA]

But we don't need them. Were fucking America! If we want something we can take it without anyone's help. The world's preeminent power doesn't really need Isreal's help. We've been pretty close with Turkey. Why not use them? I'm sure oil factors into it, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence for this theory that the whole world is controlled by Isreal and the US are their lackeys.

[ASsman]

Uh, right ok. READ THE FUCKING 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT YOU FUCKING MORON. AND STOP FUCKING POSTING COPIED AND PASTED RANDOM ASS SOURCES BULLSHIT.

[ASsman]

But I will humor you.

In the film, Moore claims that the Bush administration helped a number of Saudi princes and members of the bin Laden family to flee the United States at a time when American airspace had been closed to all commercial traffic.
" Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12; http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/
hearing10/staff_statement_10.pdf "

" “Now, what I recall is that I asked for flight manifests of everyone on board and all of those names need to be directly and individually vetted by the FBI before they were allowed to leave the country. And I also wanted the FBI to sign off even on the concept of Saudis being allowed to leave the country. And as I recall, all of that was done. It is true that members of the Bin Laden family were among those who left."
Testimony of Richard Clarke, Former Counterterrorism Chief, National Security Council, before The Senate Judiciary Committee, September 3, 2003.





Al-Faisal, who was in charge of Saudi intelligence at the time, said his country has been completely exonerated of any role in the attacks by the 9/11 commission.
This was covered above.

The commission’s report found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals took place before the reopening of national airspace on Sept. 13.
Again above.



Al-Faisal said that Moore was granted a visa to visit Saudi Arabia but never went.
Maybe he wanted to go to Disney Land.

“He missed an important opportunity to find out key facts,” he said. “In my opinion he should have made every effort to go to a country he has taken to task so heavily in his film.”
Fuck that, they cut peoples heads off there.

[bigkidpants]

GMA']But we don't need them. Were fucking America! If we want something we can take it without anyone's help. The world's preeminent power doesn't really need Isreal's help. We've been pretty close with Turkey. Why not use them? I'm sure oil factors into it, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of evidence for this theory that the whole world is controlled by Isreal and the US are their lackeys.
the point was that bin laden denies involvement with 9/11, not exactly what you'd expect if it was his idea and he was proud. i really thought about not including that last line because i didn't want it to be all about israel. god, i hate to be prejudicial or racist. but jews have an inordinate influence on the world's finances. the united states federal reserve, for example. allen greenspan? jew. how many jews were involved with the pnac and bush's push for occupation of iraq? why do we need them? i don't know, ask yourself why you need money.

[DroppinScience]

god, i hate to be prejudicial or racist. but jews have an inordinate influence on the world's finances. the united states federal reserve, for example. allen greenspan? jew. how many jews were involved with the pnac and bush's push for occupation of iraq?

So what if Greenspan or anyone else is a Jew? Noam Chomsky is a Jew himself. Does he control us too?

And bin Laden's "denial" quote doesn't mean he didn't do it.

[Tone Capone]

Saudi royal family claims ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ grossly unfair
LONDON (AP) — The Saudi royal family has taken issue with Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11 for claiming that high-ranking Saudi nationals were allowed to flee the United States immediately after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi Arabian ambassador to London and a half-brother of Crown Prince Abdullah, said in an interview published Sunday that Moore did not do proper research for his documentary on the aftermath of the terror attacks.

In the film, Moore claims that the Bush administration helped a number of Saudi princes and members of the bin Laden family to flee the United States at a time when American airspace had been closed to all commercial traffic.

Al-Faisal, who was in charge of Saudi intelligence at the time, said his country has been completely exonerated of any role in the attacks by the 9/11 commission.

The commission’s report found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals took place before the reopening of national airspace on Sept. 13.

“It would have been far better if Michael Moore had been able to read the 9/11 report before he made his film,” al-Faisal told The Sunday Telegraph. “It shows that all the protocols were strictly observed.”

Al-Faisal said that Moore was granted a visa to visit Saudi Arabia but never went.

“He missed an important opportunity to find out key facts,” he said. “In my opinion he should have made every effort to go to a country he has taken to task so heavily in his film.”

Well if the Saudi Royal Family calls it unfair, that good enough for me!!!!
(I'm joking by the way)

[bigkidpants]

So what if Greenspan or anyone else is a Jew? Noam Chomsky is a Jew himself. Does he control us too?

And bin Laden's "denial" quote doesn't mean he didn't do it. it just means he's on the record denying it, not admitting to it like the bush administration would have you believe. remember how 70% of the american population supposedly believed saddam had something to do with 9/11 because the bush adminstration kept linking them? the official 9/11 story is a myth like that.

it's not about any individual jew. it's not about most jews. it's not even about judaism itself. it's about imperialism, zionism. it's about a "special relationship" with israel. it's about the sheer volume of aipac contributions, the power of the jewish lobby. it's about israeli spies in the white house. it's about an agenda that has nothing to do with your notions of freedom. i share your sentiments, who needs them?! i wish someone would explain to me why these things exist.

[100% ILL]

Why does the United States maintain a "special relationship" with Israel? Well one reason is that This country was originally founded on Biblical principles,
In the book of Genesis God called Abraham out of his country and proclaimed I will make of the a great nation, and I will bless thee. Gen. 12:1-3

God said I will bless them that bless thee and curse them that curse thee.
When Israel became a nation again in 1948 a great biblical prophecy was fulfilled. Israel had not been unified as a nation since they were taken captive by the Assyrians in the Old Testament. So Israel becomming a nation fulfilled the promise to Abraham way back in the book of Genesis.
In short, the bible says that the Jewish people are God's chosen people. It was through them that Jesus came to the earth. Even though the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah, God said his covenant with his people is everlasting. They will not turn to cry out to God again the bible says in the book of Zechariah ch 13 until all nations turn against her. This does not happen until the book of Revelations in the last days. It is foretold many times however in the Old testament. Malachi ch. 4 Daniel 12 Also Ezekiel ch 37 38 & 39
Anyway, my point is America was a Godly nation for most part until the latter part of the 20th Century now we as a nation have pretty much forgotten God and we will turn against Israel at some point in order to fulfill the Prophecy, probably very soon.

[TheWedge]

we will turn against Israel at some point in order to fulfill the Prophecy, probably very soon.

I hope so.

[Funkaloyd]

"'Cause I'm praying for rain
And I'm praying for tidal waves
I wanna see the ground give way
I wanna watch it all go down"

The rapture's gonna totally fucking rock!

[TheWedge]

[QUOTE=Funkaloyd
The rapture's gonna totally fucking rock![/QUOTE]

(y)

I plan on watching it from the Restaraunt at the End of the Universe with my pal Zaphod Beeblebrox.

[ASsman]

Because above God, the Bushes worship money/power.

[100% ILL]

I Thessalonians 5:2-3
For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For they shall say peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

[bigkidpants]

all that rapture stuff is what they throw out to the conservative christian base, but the real deal is money and power. always has been. if there IS an armageddon, it's scripted by profits, not prophets.

learn to swim. see you down in arizona bay.

[TheWedge]

I Thessalonians 5:2-3
For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For they shall say peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.

*shakes in his boots*

[100% ILL]

*shakes in his boots*

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish , but have everlasting life.

vs. 18
He that that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

:)

[TheWedge]

but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

:)

He who believeth not in the words posted forth in the aboveth quote, shall beget no worries from the threats of an ancient text in which thoust doesn't believeth----The book of Wedge

[Vladimir]

Funkaloyd- Tool Rawks!

Yeah, and if anyone is into the whole Jew Conspiracy thing, check out www.jewwatch.com . I was born Jewish and I think this is one of the funniest sites on the web.

Just for the record, I am against most of Israel's policies, and I basically believe that they had little or no right to be there in the first place. I wrote a term paper on the founding of Israel; if anyone wants it, shoot me a line at evilelf10@usa.com.

[ASsman]

You people need to stop quoting an anciet corrupted book. The Bible contradicts itself more times than a.....contradicting robot...

[100% ILL]

You people need to stop quoting an anciet corrupted book. The Bible contradicts itself more times than a.....contradicting robot...

That was a good one. I now see the err of my ways. Your wisdom has cured me of my short sightedness. :rolleyes:

[ASsman]

:cool:

[TheWedge]

That was a good one. I now see the err of my ways. Your wisdom has cured me of my short sightedness. :rolleyes:
No no no it was YOUR wisdom and irrelevant quoting of old words written by men that has caused us ALL to repent. :rolleyes:

[100% ILL]

No no no it was YOUR wisdom and irrelevant quoting of old words written by men that has caused us ALL to repent. :rolleyes:

I would not expect you to repent.

[TheWedge]

Apparently you expect something though.
Why else would you keep posting these things?

[100% ILL]

Apparently you expect something though.
Why else would you keep posting these things?

To present to you the truth. If you had the opprotunity to help someone and did not do it wouldn't that be wrong? I know you don't belive the Bible but I do I believe it is the Word of God. So that being the case I feel it necessary to show what God has to say about matters. Like when you(anyone) says God doesn't exist etc. All of this is adressed in the Bible and I'm not attempting to make you angry or defensive or whatever. I feel that the Bible is just as relevant today as it ever has been. Man's views change. God's views do not. ie The right way is the narrow way so you call me narrow minded. The Bible says the way to destruction is broad and many there be who go thereby.
I usually do not post a scripture until someone says something like "if there even is a God" or something relating to that. It would be foolish of me to post scripture if it weren't relevant.

That's all. Peace.

[Ace42]

Man's views change. God's views do not.

What about God repenting flooding the world, to the point where he promises not to do so again? What is the New Testament if not a total revision of religious law?

[TheWedge]

There are several things wrong with what you are doing.

1. You just lied in your last post. "I do not expect you to repent".
If you are showing us the "truth" as you say it, then ultimately, if we accept it, we MUST repent.

2. You assume that no one here knows the bible. I went to CATHOLIC school from k-10 and believe me I've read your little "How to manual" more than once. I think it is a great story book, which provides a great "plan" for leading your life if you need it. I am blessed with something called "common sense" though, and most of the bibles "lessons" can be easily learned by applying my gift.

3. Several people on here have expressed alternative philosophies on religion. You saying that you are trying to help your fellow man see the truth is downright offensive, IMO. Obviously these people are not stupid and I'm sure they have reasons for accepting the "truth" the way that they do.

4. You lie saying that you only post bible verses in defense of the bible. You have posted them in defense of the war in Iraq, among other things.

Although you seem about 5000 times more intelligent than gmsisko, you're insistance on pressing your beliefs and obvious diregard of other's put you in some way on his level.

[Ace42]

There are several things wrong with what you are doing.


I'd disagree in some respects. Think of it this way: If his interpretation of Christianity is spot on and correct (purely hypothetically) - then surely, he'd have a moral responsibility to do his best to make other people see it his way?

Like when you see someone insisting that it is perfectly safe to eat raw meat - yeah you could say "I have no right to tell him how to lead his life, it's not skin off my nose" - but is that really a morally acceptable stance to take?

In his opinion, he is correct, and thus he need not work under the premise that he is wrong.

I think it is a great story book - I'd say that is more offensive than what he is doing, as he is merely putting forward the motion that what he believes is right, rather than putting forward that someone else's beliefs are wrong.

"pressing your beliefs" - is that what we are all doing here? I know my opinions press my morality on others, because I am convinced my morality is the only acceptable one to use. Would anyone here say against someone arguing that paedophillia is evil - "Stop pushing your ethical standards on me!"

So, just because his are based on a theocratic system, does it mean he shouldn't use them in arguements?

On the OTHER hand, like I said, cramming them down people's throats and expecting them just to accept them is not productive. But he has said he will endeavour to post more considered opinion, so I see no problem in him representing his perspective. As long as he realises that a lot of people won't hold the bible as a credible source, I don't see why it can't be used as *part of a system of* evidence.

[100% ILL]

What about God repenting flooding the world, to the point where he promises not to do so again? What is the New Testament if not a total revision of religious law?

God did not repent of flooding the earth. To repent means to turn from or change your mind, so he did not repent himself of the flood. He did make a covenant with Noah in Genesis 3:11 promising to never destroy the earth again by flood, and the rainbow was a sign of the covenant.
The New Testament was a fulfillment of the law.

by the way, I appreciate your unbiased defense earlier. I couldn't have said it better and you saved me a lot of typing (y)

[TheWedge]

I'd disagree in some respects. Think of it this way: If his interpretation of Christianity is spot on and correct (purely hypothetically) - then surely, he'd have a moral responsibility to do his best to make other people see it his way?

Nonesense. There is no way of proving that or disproving it therefore it is not an issue. IF he presented hard evidence and a certain immediate threat, then yeah, he can let us know. I'm just tired of people telling me what is "truth" and what isn't when it comes to religion. People really need to realize that faith and fact are seperate entities.


Like when you see someone insisting that it is perfectly safe to eat raw meat - yeah you could say "I have no right to tell him how to lead his life, it's not skin off my nose" - but is that really a morally acceptable stance to take?

No, becaus I can provide evidence of this "truth." Science can provide many LOGICAL reasons eating raw meat can be unhealthy.
Not to mention I MIGHT say one time, "you shouldn't eat that", after that, I don't care what they do. It isn't going to have an effect on me. I certainly wouldn't keep pressuring them to "buy into my story". Unless maybe they were a close family member or friend. Not an internet message board random.



- I'd say that is more offensive than what he is doing, as he is merely putting forward the motion that what he believes is right, rather than putting forward that someone else's beliefs are wrong.

Not in my opinion. Me telling him I think the bible is a story book is no where near the dramatic statement that the bible is the "truth" and y'all need to accept it or else.

"pressing your beliefs" - is that what we are all doing here? I know my opinions press my morality on others, because I am convinced my morality is the only acceptable one to use. Would anyone here say against someone arguing that paedophillia is evil - "Stop pushing your ethical standards on me!"

IMO, that is simply a rediculous comparison. I don't really agree with it on many levels.
1. paedophelia is harmful to others. Non-belief in the bible is not. (at least it cannot be proven anyway)
2. I try to not push anything on anyone. If someone were into paedophelia, I might ask them why, tell them what I think ONCE and be done with it. If I thought I could truly help in that case, I would call the police.


So, just because his are based on a theocratic system, does it mean he shouldn't use them in arguements?

Absolutely not. But a bible verse directly quoted isn't exactly "presenting an argument"

[Ace42]

Nonesense. There is no way of proving that or disproving it therefore it is not an issue. IF he presented hard evidence and a certain immediate threat, then yeah, he can let us know. I'm just tired of people telling me what is "truth" and what isn't when it comes to religion. People really need to realize that faith and fact are seperate entities.

This is "nonsense" as you put it. The inability to prove or disprove something doesn't make it automatically false, nor make it automatically a moot or irrelevant point.


No, becaus I can provide evidence of this "truth." Science can provide many LOGICAL reasons eating raw meat can be unhealthy.
Not to mention I MIGHT say one time, "you shouldn't eat that", after that, I don't care what they do. It isn't going to have an effect on me. I certainly wouldn't keep pressuring them to "buy into my story". Unless maybe they were a close family member or friend. Not an internet message board random.

Mere accumulation of observational evidence is *not* proof - Terry Pratchett. To assume there is no "logic" in theology is both insulting and down right wrong. Likewise, to assume that "having a scientific explanation" makes something "true" is a misconception.


Not in my opinion. Me telling him I think the bible is a story book is no where near the dramatic statement that the bible is the "truth" and y'all need to accept it or else.

And yet you clearly think your opinion is worth more than his, if you are rubbishing his comments. I don't think he made any threats, and you seemed just as self-assured about your comment that it is a story book as he does that it is some sort of abstract truth. From someone who agrees with neither side, I can safely say there is no rational reason apart from prejudice (in the pre-judged, rather than labeling sense) to choose one over the other. Certainly no supporting arguement has been carried by yourself.


IMO, that is simply a rediculous comparison. I don't really agree with it on many levels.
1. paedophelia is harmful to others. Non-belief in the bible is not. (at least it cannot be proven anyway)
2. I try to not push anything on anyone. If someone were into paedophelia, I might ask them why, tell them what I think ONCE and be done with it. If I thought I could truly help in that case, I would call the police.

Some Christians would say not being Christian is harmful to others - there are numerous theological arguements that could be put forward. Infact, as Christianity is almost completely concerned with the afterlife and the state of an "Immortal soul" - the suffering of life is small in comparisson to that of eternal damnation. There is certainly a logical case to suggest it could be very harmful. "It cannot be proven" - again, something can be totally unproveable and still be true. That is not a good enough reason to dress down someone's opinions. What would, in your opinion, constitute proof? And who does it need to be proven to? What if, hypothetically, God came down and spoke to 100 and confirmed his belief - that would be "proof" wouldn't it? Just because you didn't see it wouldn't make it "less true"


2. "I wouldn't push anything on anyone" - except you would indirectly by preventing them from following their morality (and thus conforming to yours / the majority's) by phoning the police. This would be "the right thing to do" - I think we are all agreed on this, irrespective of it "pushing your opinions on someone else"


But a bible verse directly quoted isn't exactly "presenting an argument"

That is wrong, it clearly could be. While some clarity, editorial selection, explanation is necessary, it is not true to say that a direct quote cannot present an arguement.

[TheWedge]

Ace2:
Perhaps you are taking what I am saying a bit to literally? I don't know.
In my defense, I am at work and trying to be quick with my responses.

I'll try and adress a few things very quickly before I leave for the day.

1. You are correct that I may be guilty of what I am accusing 100% Ill of myself. I'll give you that.
2. I never said anything was automatically true or false, I just meant that warning people of things you BELIEVE to be true but cannot back up with any source other than the bible (which many of us have professed to not believe), is just irresponsible. Kind of like the Bush admin constantly warning us of terror threats. If 100%ill wants to convert us to believe in the bible, he should go about it by explaining WHY it's true and not just saying it is and then quoting it again to support it. I am not necessarily talking fact here. Just a personal explanation.
3. Me calling the police would not be pushing my morals on someone else. It would be me protecting a victim of abuse.
4. If you honestly think that biological evidence of parasites that thrive in uncooked meat can be disputed, then I don't know what to say in return.
I'm no biologist.

I gotta quit now. But let me say one more thing.
I have no problem with Ill posting bible quotes. I just get annoyed when they are simply typed as a defense on their own. I also don't appreciate being "warned" of the rapture. In the same way I don't enjoy being told by Christians that i will burn for all eternity if I don't accept Christ as the son of God. To me THAT is VERY offensive.

[100% ILL]

Wedge, If you told me that if I do not accept the theory of evolution as fact I would burn for eternity It would not bother me. Why is redemption through Christ offensive? God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

John 14:2
In my father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go to prepare a place for you, I will come again, and recieve you unto myself; that where I am there you may be also.

John 14:6
I am the way the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the father but by me.

[EN[i]GMA]

The only problem I see is if someone criticises the Bible you can't use the Bible as defense.

Why don't you accept evolution? The Bible doesn't say "God created Humans this way, not that way". It just says he did. Why couldn't have God created humans through evolution? Isn't that more logical?

[Ace42]

In my defense, I am at work and trying to be quick with my responses.

Understood, I often make glaring typographical / presentational errors that can be misleading and confusing, so I fully sympathise.


2. I never said anything was automatically true or false, I just meant that warning people of things you BELIEVE to be true but cannot back up with any source other than the bible (which many of us have professed to not believe), is just irresponsible. Kind of like the Bush admin constantly warning us of terror threats. If 100%ill wants to convert us to believe in the bible, he should go about it by explaining WHY it's true and not just saying it is and then quoting it again to support it. I am not necessarily talking fact here. Just a personal explanation.

I concur. While the validity of his argument is beside the point, it is certainly true to say that it is pointless to hope it will be convincing of itself. At best it can merely be considered as "supporting evidence" which you can choose to add to the 'credibility pile' or dismiss as irrelevant.


3. Me calling the police would not be pushing my morals on someone else. It would be me protecting a victim of abuse.


In your opinion, which you have come to by following your own moral code. Nietzsche said that mankind can become "beyond good and evil" in relation to "God being dead." There is significant reasoning to suggest that this is PURELY a moral judgement, made on your part. For them to be a "victim" the person perpetrating the offence against them must be "wrong" - to say they are "wrong" is a moral judgement.

Wrong
1. Contrary to conscience, morality, or law; immoral or wicked.
2. Unfair; unjust.


4. If you honestly think that biological evidence of parasites that thrive in uncooked meat can be disputed, then I don't know what to say in return.
I'm no biologist.

I do not honestly think this is the case, but then there has been and can be no evidence disputing (proving OR disproving) the existance of god either.


I have no problem with Ill posting bible quotes. I just get annoyed when they are simply typed as a defense on their own. I also don't appreciate being "warned" of the rapture. In the same way I don't enjoy being told by Christians that i will burn for all eternity if I don't accept Christ as the son of God. To me THAT is VERY offensive.

You might not enjoy it, but try to see it from his point of view. He is convinced he is right, and there is no way to disprove him. It is certainly a possibility (and according to some mathematicians a mathematical certainty, but that is a bit beside the point) that god exists, and possibly how he sees it. If that is actually the case (no matter how hard you find it to believe, or how uncomfortable it makes you feel) then you are being a bit peevish to be offended by someone pointing out the truth. While we all have a choice about what religion we believe (unless you believe certain obscure philosophical schools) you do not get a choice about how the nature of god *really is* (even if that nature is 'non-existant' as aethiests would have us believe)

It is a fallacy to assume that science has anything to say on the matter of god, and a fallacy to assume that personal preference legitimises a viewpoint. If I see another person say "But I don't believe in God / The Bible / The Qu'ran" whatever, expecting their preference to have ANY sort of bearing on an argument, I'll be very ticked off.

If I said "I don't believe the Earth rotates around the Sun, so that disproves your insights into the nature of Wind and climate change!" - I'd have that logic jumped on in a second.

"I don't believe in God, so that disproves your theological argument" is equally moot.

Anyway, what with distractions here (this post has been constructed in fits and starts over the course of an hour or so) I have sort of lost my train of thought, and all of this is irrelevant, as this is a political forum, so the relevance of religion in it is highly suspect ANYWAY. It can't be any more so than any other aphorism or quotation that is not directly concerned with the topic, I guess.

So urm, yes.

The only problem I see is if someone criticises the Bible you can't use the Bible as defense.

While in embryo that would certainly seem to be the case, remember that Blighty (IIRC) used that argument against usinging the UN webpage to justify the UN.

Surely, just as I pointed out why it was acceptable, the Bible, concerned as it was with something that is by its very nature remove from tangible matter, has very little that can be used to analyse it. There is not a great deal in the same sphere of reference.

Also, the Bible is not really as holistic as some people would make out (and yes, this point to is open to debate, as a lot of fundamentalists would point out) - so one bit (IE Gospels, the word of Jesus) could be used in relation to something more sketchy (IE Jesus criticising the Phraisees is inherantly self-critical and self-referential)

It is something that merits a great deal of theological discussion and research, something I doubt we are overly qualified to do, and are certainly in the wrong place to do it.

[100% ILL]

GMA']The only problem I see is if someone criticises the Bible you can't use the Bible as defense.

Why don't you accept evolution? The Bible doesn't say "God created Humans this way, not that way". It just says he did. Why couldn't have God created humans through evolution? Isn't that more logical?

No. In the Bible man(Adam) was created by God. Gen 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The theory of eveloution suggests that man evolved over time from sub-human forms. This theory directly contradicts the Bible. Furthermore in Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every creature, that was the name thereof.
This verse shows that Adam was intelligent, to the point that his creature allowed him to name the animals and gave him dominion over them Gen 1:28

[EN[i]GMA]

But there's scientific proof stating that evolution was how it happend. Come on. Couldn't it be metaphorical? Plus if everyone descended from Adam and Eve wouldn't that have required QUITE a lot of inbreeding? Isn't having sex with your brother/sister immoral?

[EN[i]GMA]

Take Battleground God and see how rational you are in your beliefs: http://www.philosophers.co.uk/games/god.htm

[Ace42]

No. In the Bible man(Adam) was created by God. Gen 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

form Audio pronunciation of "formed" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôrm)
n.
The essence of something.

The theory of eveloution suggests that man evolved over time from sub-human forms. This theory directly contradicts the Bible.

Shurely, when god "formed" man - that could equally mean the creation of the *essence* of man? Especially as God is omnipotent, that would mean that he has control and understanding of all time. This means that in the same way that an act of creation has many stages, so evolution is merely a process of creation?


Furthermore in Genesis 2:19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every creature, that was the name thereof.
This verse shows that Adam was intelligent, to the point that his creature allowed him to name the animals and gave him dominion over them Gen 1:28

"Adam" could just as well be a metaphor for all of mankind. IE: When mankind had been created (evolved to a certain point) he was curious to see what he made of the world he had been contructed within?

If you are heart-set on taking it literally (a bad idea, as this is where the contraditions lie, not to mention dubious translation issues) what would you consider "intelligent" - a mentally subnormal individual (with a congenital disorder perhaps) still has dominion over animals, and can (depending on the individual) name them, they are still "human" and yet they are certainly not as intelligent as the rest of us.

It is conceivable that some mentally handicapped individuals could be less intelligent than non-human species, and as such could be less intelligent than a homonid human ancestor.

Would you say stupid people are "inhuman" or "animals" ?

Also, having "dominion over" animals is pretty menaingless. A queen ant has dominion over her drones, it does not imply a sentience. It could merely mean that homonid ancestors which could use tools (but were not homo sapiens) were the dominant predator on the planet. There are fossil records to support this alone.

Also, there is evidence that animals "name" things. Dolphins and even chickens can communicate using discrete sounds which represent concepts. Chickens have a cluck for "snake" which is distinct from a cluck for "bird of prey"

surely the passage only says "god wants to know what man called the animals" rather than "Man was the only thing that could name"

[100% ILL]

Interesting but, I don't see it. According to the Bible Adam is a named individual. After God brings the animals to him to be named he makes for him an help meet (woman). So if what your saying is true and "Adam" was mankind it wouldn't make any sense to make him a woman.
Also in the New testament Jesus says as by One Man sin entered into the world so that death passed upon all men. God held Adam responsible for the "fall" of man. So based on that I am inclined to disagree with you.

[100% ILL]

GMA']But there's scientific proof stating that evolution was how it happend. Come on. Couldn't it be metaphorical? Plus if everyone descended from Adam and Eve wouldn't that have required QUITE a lot of inbreeding? Isn't having sex with your brother/sister immoral?

Let's see. In the beginning of any culture even in the evoloutional one most of the people were in close bands or tribes if you will. So It could be argued that the first group of "men" who actually evolved into men had to inter breed to ensure continuation of the species I don't really see an alternative. Unless I am miastaken the morality issue of inbreeding didn't become a factor until the Mosaic covenant which happened after the Hebrews were taken out of captivity of the Egyptians.

[Jasonik]

Are you seriously trying to argue, using logic, a literal creationist view of the bible? The very premise is illogical, only faith allows such illogical beliefs, there is no rational argument by definition. Period.

[Ace42]

Interesting but, I don't see it. According to the Bible Adam is a named individual. After God brings the animals to him to be named he makes for him an help meet (woman). So if what your saying is true and "Adam" was mankind it wouldn't make any sense to make him a woman.

Numerous explanations for that, disregarding authorial license. For starters it can be a reference to the socialisation of women. Could be a reference to a point in time when women ceased to be just another one of the pack, and adapted gender roles. Could be a referfence to the generation of the "concept" of woman. If this was a theological forum, I'd encourage you to bring forward more quotes so I could consider them literally and directly, rather than proposing possible interpretations. Like I said, this STILL doesn't take into account issues of translation, either. It could be quite conceivable that the greek accounts that most modern English bibles came from 500 years ago actually said "then god TELLS woman that she was to help man" and that the translater couldn't make out the word, and thought it looked a bit like a smudged greek "made" - all sorts of explanations.

Also in the New testament Jesus says as by One Man sin entered into the world so that death passed upon all men. God held Adam responsible for the "fall" of man. So based on that I am inclined to disagree with you.

That could be a reference to Judas - the one man that betrayed him, and thus death passed on the *son of man* the only way someone without Sin (as all men since 'Adam' were born into sin except him) can thus be killed.

I take the story of the fruit of the tree of knowledge to be representative of mankind's development of free will. An animal cannot be evil, as it doesn't understand. Likewise, a child is not evil, when they misbehave they do not understand. However, by eating of the tree of knowledge (by being self-aware and thus having free will) mankind developed the faculty to be aware of the suffering it caused. Thus it is sensible that mankind can be answerable for the crimes it commits. People are not born into sin because of what Adam did, but because we all have the ability to know right from wrong, and to make our own choices, irrespective of biology. If someone does not have the knowledge of good and evil (free will) they commit no sin as they are like an animal.

But anyway, these are just my opinions. And this is NOT a theology forum.

[ASsman]

BOY ARE WE OFF TOPIC....

*Assman points to topic*

[TheWedge]

*tips hat to Ace*

You are a gentleman and a scholar.
Although, I still disagree with you on some points/ideas, I will admit you have made me re-evaluate the situation a bit. It would be nice to sit and actually talk about it face to face, but that is unlikely to happen considering I live in middle-America (Illinois) and you live in eXistenZ. ;)

But you are absolutely correct that we should drop this now being the political forum and all.