U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret 'Jesus' Bible Codes

[Berkut]

grumbler, I don't think Teh Jews appreciate your mocking of their pagan faith!

To point out that superstitions all look the same to someone not subject to them is not mocking, it is merely observing.  I think Judaism is as sensible, and as senseless, as Mormonism or Tibetan Buddhism.

If Jews think that they are being referenced when one talks about superstitions, I am sorry (though it is amusing to hear them talk about other people's beliefs as "superstitions").

To other sheep in the flock, each sheep probably does look distinctive.  To me, they all look like sheep.

Baaahhhhh!

[The Minsky Moment]

Allowing some farmland to lie fallow in order to allow it to recover from the depletion of nutrients is a sensible modern agricultural practice.  Allowing all of the land to lie fallow for, say, every seventh year because seven was a sacred number and one's religious taboos forbade farming in taboo years is not  sensible.

Seems pretty sensible to me to back up the sensible agrarian practice with a religious injunction to help ensure compliance.  After all, despite the jokes about your age, you weren't actually around in ancient Canaan to teach proper agricultural practices in the public school system.

f Jews think that they are being referenced when one talks about superstitions, I am sorry

berkut is jewish?! 

[grumbler]

That is not what I read. Way I heard it, the cartridges were greased with "tallow", which did not have any one definitive origin (as the Brits did not care what species of animal provided the fat). Pigs, sheep, cows - all were used to make "tallow". 

I am not sure what you have read, but as I pointed out, the British in India very much did care and were aware of the sources of the tallow.  The myth that they didn't is one of the persistent ones about the revolt, and the reason it persists is because the sepoys falsely believed it to be true.

Naturally, the Brits had no particular notion to "break caste". They were simply uncaring as to the nature of the fat they used. Neither do the Americans in this case have any notion to pose as "Crusaders".

As I noted, a false analogy.  Probably on both ends (because I am not sure anyone beyond a few fanatics really believes Americans are "Crusaders").

This was an option made available to some troops (but not others) once the protests started. It is irrelevant that the troops had not yet been issued the cartridges.

This makes no sense.  The Mutiny started over the rumor that the Indian troops had been issued cartridges whose paper contained pig and cow fat (once the British announced that the greased cartridges would not be issued).  Even when the British responded to the tallow issue, the sepoys simply believed something else, because they were convinced that an overall plan existed.

This is typical ex-post thinking. Sure, by that moment in 1857, it may (or may not) have been the case that a widespread rebellion costing thousands of lives could not have been prevented.

This is typical goal-shifting.  Turns out that your unsupported "it is certainly" is wrong, so now you are rewording things and calling my well-supported argument "typical ex-post thinking!" 

No matter how you might want to mischaracterize it, my point stands.  Are you going to continue to argue that "most certainly not the case that the rebellion would have happend" regardless of British actions on the "tallowed bullet" issue, given that the British never issued it, and went to lengths to assure the sepys that they would not be issued it?

The $64,000 question is - do you really think that we are, vis. the Muslim world, in the same position as the Brits in 1857? Are you of the opinion that a widespread war in which our various Muslim allies worldwide turn against us is now inevitable, such that no gestures we could make would make any difference?

Why is that even an interesting question, let alone a $64,000 one?  Do you believe this to be true?  If so, can you provide any evidence for your belief?

I am not of that opinion. I say we are more like the Brits a decade or two before the rebellion. There is still plenty we can do to strengthen our hand with the uncommitted (or to further piss them off).

I don't think there are many parallels at all, and so don't ascribe to your analogy.  If you actually want to make and describe this analogy, I might find it compelling.  Just stating that you believe one exists isn't compelling at all (to me).

Your position is the equivalent of saying that the Brits should not have cared about pig and cow tallow issued to Sepoys in 1847, or 1837, should have issued it to them anyway, because those damn sepoys just protest everything, so we have nothing to lose.

Please don't tell me what my position is.  I get that enough from the posters here whom I recognize don't understand intellectual dishonesty.  If you cannot restrain yourself, just say so and we can end this conversation amicably.  Homey just don't play that game.

You are of the opinion we are in that state vis. the world's Muslims? I'm not.

Nope.  I am describing history.  You are attempting to make an analogy, not me.

That being the case it would seem to me a good idea to learn from history rather than repeating it.

I don't think that those are the only choices.

[The Minsky Moment]

grumbler, I don't think Teh Jews appreciate your mocking of their pagan faith!

To point out that superstitions all look the same to someone not subject to them is not mocking, it is merely observing . . . .To other sheep in the flock, each sheep probably does look distinctive.  To me, they all look like sheep.

That seems to me a very narrow and crude view of a more complex phenomenon.  Christianity as a religion includes many fantastic, supernatural and superstitious elements.  It also incorporates powerful ethical ideas from ancient Greek and Near Eastern philosophy, ideas which have been refined and built upon by Christian thinkers and theologians over the centuries.  To recognize no distinction between the Christianity which contains these ideas from the pseudo-Christianity that elides them is a basic error.

[grumbler]

Seems pretty sensible to me to back up the sensible agrarian practice with a religious injunction to help ensure compliance.

Well, if you are one who believes that magic numbers create sensible practices, I suppose you would feel this way.  To someone outside the flock, though, your magic numbers and all-or-nothing approach are not obviously sensible, whether backed up with appeal to superstitious dread or not.

[The Minsky Moment]

Seems pretty sensible to me to back up the sensible agrarian practice with a religious injunction to help ensure compliance.

To someone outside the flock, though, your magic numbers and all-or-nothing approach are not obviously sensible, whether backed up with appeal to superstitious dread or not.

that may be so.  But an ancient Canaanite priest wouldn't care much about what others might think; he would be more concerned that his own people used the land properly to protect the food supply.  From his POV, if magic numbers do the trick, then why not use them?

[derspiess]

Btw are there any Languish Jews other than Siegy who abide by whatever it is you call the dietary restrictions?

Just curious, as I've known some lapsed/atheist Jews (and one lapsed Muslim FWIW) who are still influenced by the pork taboo.

[Malthus]

I am not sure what you have read, but as I pointed out, the British in India very much did care and were aware of the sources of the tallow.  The myth that they didn't is one of the persistent ones about the revolt, and the reason it persists is because the sepoys falsely believed it to be true.

They cared once the issue was brought to their attention. They did not "care" on their own account.

As I noted, a false analogy.  Probably on both ends (because I am not sure anyone beyond a few fanatics really believes Americans are "Crusaders").

Merely stating the analogy is false isn't the same as demonstrating that it is.

This makes no sense.  The Mutiny started over the rumor that the Indian troops had been issued cartridges whose paper contained pig and cow fat (once the British announced that the greased cartridges would not be issued).  Even when the British responded to the tallow issue, the sepoys simply believed something else, because they were convinced that an overall plan existed.

That isn't what "started" the mutiny. What "started" the mutiny was a whole series of issues that created mistrust. The fact that the brits had attempted to introduce "tallowed" cartridges was one further example, but it alone would not have created mutiny, any more than a single brick holds up an arch.

This is typical goal-shifting.  Turns out that your unsupported "it is certainly" is wrong, so now you are rewording things and calling my well-supported argument "typical ex-post thinking!" 

No matter how you might want to mischaracterize it, my point stands.  Are you going to continue to argue that "most certainly not the case that the rebellion would have happend" regardless of British actions on the "tallowed bullet" issue, given that the British never issued it, and went to lengths to assure the sepys that they would not be issued it?

Do you ever dislocate your arm patting yourself on the back?  Here's a clue: if you have to characterize your *own* arguments as "well-supported", chances are they are not.

Sure, if a world-wide Muslim WW3 was to break out tomorrow, doing something about this rifle sight business would be irrelevant today. So what? As far as we know, we aren't in that position.

I don't think there are many parallels at all, and so don't ascribe to your analogy.  If you actually want to make and describe this analogy, I might find it compelling.  Just stating that you believe one exists isn't compelling at all (to me).

Yet you are, seemingly, of the opinion that the Mutiny *is* a good analogy. Or at least, you said as much.  Otherwise, why did you respond "exactly" to my "reminiscent of the Mutiny" observation?

Ether you think the situation is reminiscent or you don't. You can't have it both ways. 

Please don't tell me what my position is.  I get that enough from the posters here whom I recognize don't understand intellectual dishonesty.  If you cannot restrain yourself, just say so and we can end this conversation amicably.  Homey just don't play that game.

Saying "is the equivalent of" is not "dishonesty". Sheesh. In between your "well-reasoned arguments" and everyone elses' "dishonesty" is is surprising you bother to waste time on us. 

[The Minsky Moment]

Btw are there any Languish Jews other than Siegy who abide by whatever it is you call the dietary restrictions?

Just curious, as I've known some lapsed/atheist Jews (and one lapsed Muslim FWIW) who are still influenced by the pork taboo.

Don't eat pork but for various reasons I wouldn't eat it no matter what my religion was.
Don't eat shellfish - but primarily because I don't like it.

[Ed Anger]

Don't eat pork but for various reasons I wouldn't eat it no matter what my religion was.

[/quote]

[grumbler]

That seems to me a very narrow and crude view of a more complex phenomenon.  Christianity as a religion includes many fantastic, supernatural and superstitious elements.  It also incorporates powerful ethical ideas from ancient Greek and Near Eastern philosophy, ideas which have been refined and built upon by Christian thinkers and theologians over the centuries.  To recognize no distinction between the Christianity which contains these ideas from the pseudo-Christianity that elides them is a basic error.

That the difference between the sheep is an essential distinction is a belief that all sheep share, but it is not an extrinsic truth.  I recognize a difference between religion and philosophy, but the differences between one form of religion and another are to me so much less than between religion and non-religion that all religions look pretty much the same.  Religious people scoffing at other religions/beliefs amuse me, but that is about it.

[grumbler]

They cared once the issue was brought to their attention. They did not "care" on their own account.

They cared from the very start.

Merely stating the analogy is false isn't the same as demonstrating that it is.

The burden of proof isn't on me.

That isn't what "started" the mutiny. What "started" the mutiny was a whole series of issues that created mistrust.

So you are now going to argue what the meaning of "started? is?

I am not playing that game.  I am done here.

[Ed Anger]

i did not have sex with that woman

[Razgovory]

grumbler, I don't think Teh Jews appreciate your mocking of their pagan faith!

To point out that superstitions all look the same to someone not subject to them is not mocking, it is merely observing.  I think Judaism is as sensible, and as senseless, as Mormonism or Tibetan Buddhism.

If Jews think that they are being referenced when one talks about superstitions, I am sorry (though it is amusing to hear them talk about other people's beliefs as "superstitions").

To other sheep in the flock, each sheep probably does look distinctive.  To me, they all look like sheep.

Eh, Athiests are like that to me.  Except replace sheep with 15 year old know it alls.

[The Minsky Moment]

So you are now going to argue what the meaning of "started? is?

Books have been written on that very subject.

Eg. http://www.amazon.com/Causes-English-Revolution-1529-1642/dp/0415266734