History=Hipocracy

History teaches us that for centuries, religions and the governments they infest have been against scientific progress. I find it funny that these same people claim to be protecting us or protecting the sanctity of life in the name of "ethics" always partake in these scientific advances deemed unethical by their predecessors to keep from dying themselves. It is important to realize this hipocracy which is caused by the fear of the unknown. Additionally, if they believe so much in a "god" and "heaven", why would they use science to prolong their lives?

History also teaches us that the long lineage of Popes, religious leaders and governments have always tried to supress science, and these same people would not be alive today if not for science. Most of the world population would not exist if not for the advancements of science.

It is of no suprise that the powers that be wish to defend their means of control over society and not to mention, their paychecks.

There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call "history", it is simply a succesion of mistakes, intolerances, and violations.

Damn Kal did you come here to Penis Enlargement or for roundabout discussions?

This is a great forum, where everyone can impose their views. Ohh, pe is my top priority though.

Haha I was just messin with you any involvment is always encouraged

Gee Kal,

All I can say is, it sucks to be you. Turn that frown upside down.

Bigger

Hipocracy and mystification have lasted long enough. The Church, using truthful messages as their basis, temples were built were people could worship worthless pieces of wood or metal, and living in misplaced luxury and using people's fear to achieve their own ends. Wars were even waged under the pretext of spreading these biblical messages abroad.

There are now hardly any students left in the Roman Catholic seminaries where preists are trained. But there are some unhappy people who feel they have to spread love and open peoples' minds. Fifty years ago there were 50,000 seminarists undergoing training at any one time, but now there are only about 500. This means that there are at least 49,500 unhappy people who do not feel attracted to a church shrouded with crimes and darkness.

Don't forget that the Vatican has condenmed every new scientific discovery. Not only did it condemn Copernicus and Galileo when they demonstrated that the earth is not the center of the universe, but Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for saying there was life on other planets. Also, the first people to eat with forks were excommunicated, since food being "God's gift", should only be touched by hand! We must'nt forget the steam engine, electricity, and so on, not to mention contraception and abortion of course.

So you see, the Pope is always faithful to the long Catholic tradition of being against all progress! It is important that we understand this hipocracy.

People under the constraints of the Church, which is fossilized and encrusted with crimes and criminal inquisitions thousands of years old, are in my opinion, among those who would have crucified Jesus if you had lived in his time. Yet now you want to see members of your family born, get married and die under his image because this has become part of your morals and customs. Behaving like those who went to watch the lions devouring the first Christians, you also direct ironic smiles at those who dare challenge the Church, saying that they should be placed in a mental institution. Nowadays, when someone has disturbing ideas, he is not crucified or fed to an animal- that is far to barbaric, instead these people are sent to a mental institution. Had these establisHydromaxents existed 2,000 years ago, Jesus and those who followed him, would definetly have been put there.

Wow...you make alot of propositions...The past is filled with many mistakes and yes, there is a lot of hypocrisy that is still around today. Theres nothing you can really do about it but bring it up. This is how life is. People are going to believe in what they want to believe, weather or not you think its true. As for Jesus going to the crazy house...now that would have been interesting to see :s Instead he suffered a much worst fate, well worth it though.

I get your point though :blush:

Ther's alot more hipocracy in our history. At the beginning of the 19th century, anesthics were used alot in surgery, but moralists rebelled against them saying that they were dulling the pain during labor. But is it not written in the good book that a women will give birth through pain? So basically it was pratically impossible to give medication to a woman who was giving birth in order to relieve the pain because it was contrary to God's wishes!

I believe it was Queen Victoria, who helped make this acceptable by taking the medication herself (9 children) in turn, quieting the moralists. It was a big leap forward in light of the ignorance which prevailed in those days and relied heavily on the laws of God every time beliefs were challenged.

I had to crack a smile every time I heard the late Pope John-Paul protest against cloning and stem-cell research using the cliche', "You must not play God". I always found that hipocritical and funny at the same time.

He seemed to forget how surgeons saved his life more than once, and if it wasn't for them and their, "playing God", he would've died much sooner. How could he protest against research on aging when one of his predeccesors , Pope Pius xi, was getting regular fetal ewe injections at the Paul Niehaus rejuvenation clinic in Switzerland?

Where their is humans they shall be hipocracy, either in small or large doses.
Nothing ANYONE can do now or than, or in the future to stop it because its part of the way that humans are....simple as that.

One more note on History and hipocracy, if there had been a newspaper in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago, it would have reported on the unemployment, and the rise in costs of living because of ridiculous Roman taxes. These headlines would have been the talk of the day. Then there would be some lines written by "scientists" of the day,on this false prophet claiming to be "king of the Jews", and it would be suggested to the authorities that this person be arrested right away because he is dragging a lot of credulous people, his "followers" around with him.

So anyway this "false prophet" is then arrested, tried, and sentenced to die. This man who had dedeicated his life to spreading the truth in the Biblical messages will be crucified between 2 bandits. What crime had he commited? Unlawful preaching of the truth reserved only for officially registered religions: those who had been in existance for at least 2 or 3 hundred years.

But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.

Click to expand...

--Matthew 27:20

The "high priests" of the religions and the news media convince the public that a religion has to be a few thousand years old in order to be taken seriosly, and everything else is nothing more than a dangerous "sect."

well...if you consider the exodus to be the begining of Judaism, it had been around since about 13BC.

The administration should clarify its intent in Viet'nam. People lack confidence of our government. Even our allies are beginning to suspect what we say. It's a difficult thing to be informed about our government even without all the secrecy.

It is important to the future of our nation to recognize that there is a problem of credibility today. The people of the United States must know not only how their country became involved but were we are heading.

Government has an obligation to present information to the public promptly and accurately so that the public's evaluation of Government activities is not distorted.

Click to expand...

What do all these qoutes have in common? They were all made by Donald Rumsfeld, and directed at the Johnson administration. He was angry that Johnson "lied us into expanding the war, via the phoney Gulf of Tonkin incident." Today, Rummy is on the other side of the coin, lying and defending an immoral war- a war that was waged on evidence as phoney as Johnson's.

Kal,

Once again, you do not know your history. Rummy was in favor of the war in V. But Johnson was not letting the people know the exact purposes of the war. In the current situation, the administration is letting the people know what is going on, and why, and the plans for the future.

What Rummy wanted was for the Johnson administration to go beyond the scope of "stopping the spread of communism", an economic system. We were also protecting millions of innocents from totalitarian rule, and tyranny. Not only in South Vietnam, but other countries in the region. Because Johnson and/or Nixon, did not explain the situation, and consequences of action or inaction, we failed in Vietnam on all fronts. As a results, millions of innocents were murdered, and 30 years later, millions more still do not have the right of self determination. But the left does not seem to mourn the deaths of innocents, and results of the Vietnam war. Why is that?

These same results can be projected in the middle east if our actions mimic those of Johnson and Nixon.

Originally posted by Bib:

Once again, you do not know your history. Rummy was in favor of the war in V. But Johnson was not letting the people know the exact purposes of the war. In the current situation, the administration is letting the people know what is going on, and why, and the plans for the future.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying Rumsfeld was against the war in Nam, but just that he is a hipocrite.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9324.htm

I really don't intend to debate about the reasons we went into Vietnam, but let's face it, the US army was always superior to it's Vietnamease adversary. They only won because they were more determined and had more reasons to carry on with the war than the US.

So Kal, WHY do YOU think he was a hypocrite?

Your siting does not show that. It makes no connections whatsoever... to anything...or about anything.

Bigger

originally posted by Bib:

So Kal, WHY do YOU think he was a hypocrite?

Click to expand...

When he was a senator, he was speaking dillegently trying to extract the truth from that administration, today as we so aptly see, various senators are speaking, or should I say grilling him to get the truth. And Cheney said,"The insurgents are in their last throes", while Rummy said, "This insurgency can last 5, 9, or up to 12 years", which is it?

Kal,

>When he was a senator, he was speaking dillegently trying to extract the truth from that administration,<

Well, you got that completely wrong. First, he was a congressman. Second, he was not asking for any "truth". He understood why we were in Vietnam, and was asking the Johnson administration to explain to the American people why we were there, in order to shore up support for the war. He wanted something more than : we are there to stop the spread of communism".

He wanted it pointed out that along with communism comes totalitarian control of the people and region, and a loss of freedoms. He wanted the debate placed on a higher plane. Johnson failed in this miserably.

>today as we so aptly see, various senators are speaking, or should I say grilling him to get the truth. And Cheney said,"The insurgents are in their last throes", while Rummy said, "This insurgency can last 5, 9, or up to 12 years", which is it?<

Totally different theme, unrelated in any way to Rummy's Vietnam requests. Everyone knows, or should know, why the war in Iraq is being fought. That there are differences of opinion between individuals in the administration is fine. It shows they are allowed, and provide, individual thought. They both have the right to give their own opinions. Let us hope Cheney is correct.

But most probably, there will be an insurgent problem for years to come, but will be reduced over time. At some point, the Iraqis can handle it on their own.

Bigger

Originally posted by Bib:

Well, you got that completely wrong. First, he was a congressman. Second, he was not asking for any "truth". He understood why we were in Vietnam, and was asking the Johnson administration to explain to the American people why we were there, in order to shore up support for the war. He wanted something more than : we are there to stop the spread of communism".

Click to expand...

My apologizes my friend, you are right and I am wrong.

Bib said:

Kal,

>When he was a senator, he was speaking dillegently trying to extract the truth from that administration,<

Well, you got that completely wrong. First, he was a congressman. Second, he was not asking for any "truth". He understood why we were in Vietnam, and was asking the Johnson administration to explain to the American people why we were there, in order to shore up support for the war. He wanted something more than : we are there to stop the spread of communism".

He wanted it pointed out that along with communism comes totalitarian control of the people and region, and a loss of freedoms. He wanted the debate placed on a higher plane. Johnson failed in this miserably.

>today as we so aptly see, various senators are speaking, or should I say grilling him to get the truth. And Cheney said,"The insurgents are in their last throes", while Rummy said, "This insurgency can last 5, 9, or up to 12 years", which is it?<

Totally different theme, unrelated in any way to Rummy's Vietnam requests. Everyone knows, or should know, why the war in Iraq is being fought. That there are differences of opinion between individuals in the administration is fine. It shows they are allowed, and provide, individual thought. They both have the right to give their own opinions. Let us hope Cheney is correct.

But most probably, there will be an insurgent problem for years to come, but will be reduced over time. At some point, the Iraqis can handle it on their own.

Bigger

Click to expand...

Really it doesn't make much difference what Rumsfeld said or has said.

Look at the Iraq situation this way...for the cynics and those who believe the war was unjustified at least legally we are more than concerned with the precedent that has been set with this invasion. Our ever expanding role in the Middle East is being laid out before us on a scale that many people do not like. Long ago are the days of isolationism and with the U.S. appearing to be the aggressor in many middle eastern countries (regardless of their leaders' positions) what is to stop other less stable countries from dragging the U.S. into wars many of our own leaders believe they could afford taking such risks? What is to stop them from attacking us HERE? Has this invasion actually stopped the terrorists from believing what they do? Has it been the same men who hijacked our airplanes that are killing Iraqis and U.S. and coalition? Or is it others that share the same beliefs and have been given more reasons to wage war with the U.S.? So while you believe it's worth it and the reasons were more than justified 9/11 might be more than just the can o worms that lead to the Iraq invasion, but moreover an arguable justification for other countries to be wary of U.S. foreign policy and further promote hatred toward the U.S. Nothing is black and white and in Iraq we're seeing an array of things gone wrong. That kind of offense and suffering should not be brought upon any people of any nation. There is hell to pay yet and the U.S. is no longer the patriotic true hero country that saved the world from Hitler.

You keep bringing up the Duelfer's report. If anything the Duelfer's report should have taught you that the sanctions on Iraq had worked, Saddam no longer had the chemical and biological programs, but only wanted surrounding neighbors to think he still had the capabilities, and while he wanted to resume the programs and got the corruptive assistance if you will from countries like France and Russia he still only made around 18 billion dollars. He was barely keeping his regime together. Had the U.S. exposed what was going on with the Oil for Food program earlier, had we diplomatically worked with Russia, France, etc on fully supporting the economic sanctions on Iraq maybe an invasion would not have occurred. These are all things that would have taken less time than Saddam's supposed threat would have taken to effect us. And yes global markets make sanction efforts difficult and you may think an attack on the U.S. would have occurred had we waited any longer, but at the same token waging a war makes such a thing impossible to work and sanctions had accomplished the task of vastly weakening Saddam's weapon programs.

The idea of regime change has never been something this country has stood for or allowed until now. It is not the U.S. job to force out through war/aggression the leader of any nation no matter what the leader has done however apparently now it is. At some point the Iraqis are going to say get out, oh and apparently they have already. The situation the U.S. helped creat is proving to be on par or worse than what Saddam could have ever done. "Fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here." When have we ever fought anyone here since ? Because of a highly suspect insinuation between the attacks on 9/11 and Saddam and Al-qaeda the invasion of Iraq eventually will signify the reasons behind regular attacks on our own soil. I mean before it was communism and now it's our turn I suppose for many of the same reasons. It's a nice sili thought to actually believe that the war on terror is actually about getting rid of terrorism when war is about the last thing that can get rid of it. It must be nice to believe that it's better to get rid of a tyrant who has never attacked our soil before finding and punishing the one group and man responsible for 9/11. How is it possible to be 100% dedicated to finding Usama bin Laden and getting rid of Al-Qaeda through a war in Iraq? Let them come in to Iraq and die oh yeah meanwhile innocent Iraqis die needlessly something we argued was a reason to invade Iraq. Yeah...and all of or even an amount close to all terrorist networks are supposed to go to the one place they probably won't do much other than die? Eventually the only thing that will be realized by the terrorist networks is that the U.S. is now just as if not more vulnerable right now than it was on 9/11. Meanwhile the U.S. will be contemplating invading Iran...Boy the U.S. sure does have an awful long list of enemies....and for no reason whatsoever either. strange. Things are going to change one way or another but I hope things will change through more peaceful manners. If I see Fox News or CNN or MSNBC or CBS news starting to sound eerily familiar towards Iran like the way it started with Iraq a few years back I'm not sure what the hell this country will do. We're just can't take it. I don't think we will in fact. It's a representative government and while it's not a true democracy if the people don't believe we should have invaded Iraq now there shouldn't even be talks of going to war with Iran. Whether it's the right or wrong decision we'll pay the consequences no matter what. I think the people would be right to not support the next aggressive campaign in the Middle East.