Maybe mankind will be able to solve the problem in another way, via avoiding the threat of nuclear war? There can only be one option: all nuclear weapons must be controlled by all. No country should be able to use nuclear weapons at its own will. Only in that case all states will be feeling safe against the face of the nuclear war , in html format, p. The society should have as many achievements as all its members can make in total. What to achieve and what to do?
There are two ways here. The first way is based on the technological development of society. Over the past years, various discoveries were made that have brought to life new activities. Other new activities will appear in the future. The second way is the activity aimed at the improvement and development of the world around us on the Earth. All previous activities were leading to the destruction of this world. It is necessary to create a new capital of the state, in which people will start with their own hands building a life without all the shortcomings that exist in the contemporary society.
This capital should grow not upward, into the sky, in the form of skyscrapers, but in breadth. Modern means of communication and transport will allow people to live in separate villages and towns in which people will enjoy all the achievements of society and directly participate in the improvement and development of the environment.
Both the capital and the adjoining settlements must fully provide themselves with food and material means, including energy. When the creative goals of society are proclaimed, many young people, not only in Russia, but also in other countries, will rush to build the new capital.
With their own hands, they will further detail these goals, clarify and develop them further. The peoples of the world are tired of idleness and inoccupation! Each person is created for labour, and the highest joy for him will be his achievements in work meant to bring benefit to all people , in html format, p.
Much work remains to be done for correcting the errors and creating a new description. We hope that the new description of the surrounding world will be built on the no-hypotheses basis. The physical science will no longer be a collection of sacred hypotheses incomprehensible even for specialists. This science will give people a clear and explicit knowledge of the world, which will allow them to arrange their lives consciously, purposefully and rationally.
I am sure that there is nothing beyond the world and nothing inexplicable in the world. Yet there exist many things still unknown to us. I hope that, together with the Theory of Relativity, the mystical perception of the surrounding world will pass away, and the highest goal of society will be its desire for knowledge about the world 2, p. For example, such scholars treated me, a Russian-speaking person, as Brahmans treat sudra. Even the English-speaking Chinese researcher Chan Rasjid from Singapore had noted my Russian English which I tried to use while presenting to him my exhaustive explanations concerning the TR.
If the anti-relativists were closer to the reality and treated me as sudras treat a Brahman, then the TR would passed away 30 years ago . Truth in life is important for a person, and truth in science is important for a scientist. The truth in life will only survive if scientists do not lose the truth in science.
However, the truth is still in science. Hence, there is truth in life. To find the truth and retain it, I suggest you reading my paper , p. For all the good and bad, true and erroneous in my work, I bear personal responsibility: I did it with zeal and without any evil intent.
I did my job as I could, and who can, let him do better , p. From the deputy Editor, on December 16, I received a decision letter rejecting my paper with the following motivation. Its publication is considered inadvisable, and no improvement or revision of the text can follow. In the decision of the editorial board, it was noted that my reviewed paper in to Items 19, 24, 25, and 52 was denying almost all contemporary achievements of science in the field of physics and space-physics.
And the scientific world is unlikely to quickly follow the genius of J. However, I cannot so easily agree that the scientific world will never follow me. It already does, with my results being already in use. All other results will also find their applications, as these results were gained while studying natural phenomena coming from the surrounding world.
They do not depend on erroneous presumptions or hypotheses, and they will always be true and fair. The current understanding of the micro- and macro-world is based on a system of sequentially adopted hypotheses. The adoption of those hypotheses has led us to the construction of a world that does not exist.
The force of interaction between charged bodies depends on the distance between the bodies and on the velocity of their relative motion. The space, time and the mass of bodies all do not depend on the velocity of their motion. The force of mutual attraction between bodies depends only on the distance between them.
There is no good reason for ascribing a different nature to the force of gravitation. All hypotheses and their consequences about the expansion of the Universe, the Big Bang, gravitational waves, Black holes, Dark energy, etc.
The contemporary academic science has created a halo of exclusivity around itself. This had allowed the science to create a fantastic world that cannot be put to doubt. This science has secured a system for publishing its works, financing them and setting the rating to those works in such a way that the research works criticizing the results of academic science did not develop and remain inaccessible both for society and academic science.
There is no reason for creating the halo of exclusivity around the academic science. Society will be able to assign a high status to science only when becomes convinced in the reliability of obtained scientific results.
All contemporary science must be analyzed in its very foundations. Weak bases must be discarded, and the consequences from them must be eliminated from science. Society faces a lot of problems whose solution will only be found as a result of the examination of those problems.
Without solving them, further development of society will be under threat. Society cannot entrust the solution of its vital problems to the contemporary academic science. Science can only earn trust of society considering the reliability of obtained results. The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
The Way of Science, 1, Determination of Forces and Calculation of Movements. Palmarium Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken, p. The Way of Science, 10, December 24, Tyumen, Unpublished. Journal of Modern Physics, 5, In: Drozdov, D. Petersburg, About Belief and Nation Halidoms.
Joseph J. Kerzhakov, Unpublished. Natural Science, 3, Nova Science Publishers, New York, p. In: Malyushin, N. Share This Article:. The paper is not in the journal. Go Back HomePage. DOI: Those works were performed along different lines of research, each line reflecting some relevant side of the surrounding world. The review is focused on the world around us and on our understanding of this world. While writing the present paper, author tried to outline the disadvantages of the contemporary scientific picture of the world.
Those disadvantages mainly stem from the presently adopted scientific method in which almost all explanations of physical phenomena are based on hypotheses. Gradually, the arbitrariness of adopted hypotheses gets forgotten, and fictional explanations get establish as the real structures of the world. In the present paper, the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions are treated from the position of the no-hypothesis approach. The latter approach consists in the study of phenomena as they are, in the measurement of the various properties of natural objects, and in the establishment of relations between them.
Moreover, the new understanding of the world permits anticipation of future results without recurring to hypotheses. Some unveiled sides of the surrounding world are also analyzed, together with the problems the human society presently faces.
In conclusion, author summarizes the main shortcomings of the contemporary academic science which have caused public distrust in obtained results. Author would like to emphasize here that science can only earn trust in society via reliability and trustworthiness of its reached results. Author hopes that this publication will prove interesting for a wide range of readers. Introduction In contemporary academic science, both in foreign and domestic, or, in other words, in the mainstream science, some system of views has established.
The surrounding world and its perception 1 Everything consists of two: the world around us and our understanding of this world , p. There lies my spear on the ground, and not a trace can I see Of the fellow I meant to kill, whom I wished to overthrow!
Truly, this Anhiside enjoys the favor of Olympic deities! Criteria of knowledge of the surrounding world 3 What is truth? Truth is knowledge by using which we find results of our actions complying with our intentions. Science is the field of human activity aimed at gaining new knowledge about the world around us. Mathematical time is used in the theoretical description of the surrounding world.
The sizes between objects are arranged in three mutually perpendicular directions. The sizes of the intervals are called distances. Space is the total of the objects and the gaps between them. Below, we give some examples concerning this point. And what is mass? And what is matter? And what is god? God is a mythical being which controls the surrounding world. And what is the ether?
We've listed any clues from our database that match your search. There will also be a list of synonyms for your answer.
The synonyms have been arranged depending on the number of charachters so that they're easy to find. Premium Spores. Minimalist Habits Motivational speaker. CounterPunch News and media website. Handcuffs For Hillary Political organisation. Pages liked by this Page. Pet Health. March Against Monsanto. Truth Teller. The United States of Corruption. Bradley Manning. Kelly L. Bringing in irrelevancies such as Nazi Germany and Communist Russia renders you not only a dangerous ignoramus but a vile hypocrite as well.
I see this kind of anger in many mainstream medicine people, only believing what their pharmaceutical company funded schools allow them to hear. The minute you begin to think for yourself or use common sense you will be shunned. Actually, musine which was the first form, is a derivative of mustard gas; however, what Jordan Nash failed to point out, probably due to his ignorance, was that the drug was supplanted years ago.
Of course you are correct I just wanted to point out that a general statement like Jordans above could only be true in a very limited sense, and as such should have been noted as such, rather than implying all chemotherapy is derived from mustard gas, or even that such a chemical is used today.
As I explained to Over the Edge, what ticks me off is these medical ignoramuses attempting to drag good science such as the clinical testing being conducted on Roche's MPDL through the mud of their ignorance. This is no different than creationists and the like taking fine science and well done scientific reports and twisting them beyond recognition to their own ends. For some reason, asking for evidence, e. I've been meaning to ask you if you ever watch "Coffee with Claire? It's on You Tube.
Mustine has long since been supplanted. One way or the other, as you have no medical background, you cannot make a valid judgment on what is dangerous when it comes to treating cancer. When you start dragging the promising research of Roche's MPDL through the mud of your ignorance, you're not only an imbecile for making a judgment on something which you are not qualified to judge, but you are a vile piece of ignorant trash as well and a poor excuse for anything worthwhile.
Interesting though that drug companies are finally showing interest in the immune system instead of killing cancer cells and everything in its path. Ironically, that's been the premise of natural healing all along. It's more than "promising. Denigrating this positive step based only on your proud and wilful ignorance places you among the lowest of the low. Most of your replies contain "where's your evidence" or something similar, yet you provide none yourself other than "quack watch". You pound the conventional medicine drum like an automaton and it pains you to see the truth.
Any evidence that could be found, even though you yourself supply none, is supported solely by the pharmaceutical industry whose total interests rely on natural medicine being ignored. Funny how, if the patients survive your methods they'll turn to natural medicine for a cure yet you never see a case where cancer patients try natural medicine first then turn to conventional treatment. Similarly funny, how so many medical doctors will eventually turn to natural medicine to, at minimum, enhance their therapies but you'll never see a naturopathic physician turn to radiation and chemo for help.
Anyone of even moderate intelligence can see what the real motivation behind quack watch is You are the one making claims, so the burden of proof rests with you. As I am not a claimant, I do not have to provide any evidence. So far, your only "evidence" has consisted of a quote from a doctor who is held in ill repute by the mainstream medical profession--and rightly so and unsupported allegations against Quackwatch.
Once again, if there were anything to "natural healing," it would have become part of mainstream medicine a long time ago. Once again, you're commenting on something you know absolutely nothing about and don't care to learn anything about which renders you a wilful ignoramus. Actually that's not true at all and it's definitely not funny.
I have a personal experience where the person was absolutely certain they would beat their leukemia with natural treatments. This person tried just about everything from juicing to alkalizing to H2O2 to MMS, to flying his own private guru in from India. Guess what? Nothing worked. He got sicker and sicker. Finally after almost a year he turned to his oncologists but it was too late.
And then there is Steve Jobs. With all his monetary resources he had access to any kind of alternative TO medicine i. You know how that story ended. The sad thing is if he'd listened to his doctors and had the tumor removed when first diagnosed he had an excellent chance of surviving. He had pancreatic cancer but it wasn't the deadly kind most get. It was a neuroendocrine tumor that if caught early and removed was very treatable.
He decided to juice etc. The War Against Quackery is a carefully orchestrated, heavily endowed campaign sponsored by extremists holding positions of power in the orthodox hierarchy The mutimillion-dollar campaign against quackery was never meant to root out incompetent doctors; it was, and is, designed specifically to destroy alternative medicine The millions were raised and spent because orthodox medicine sees alternative, drugless medicine as a real threat to its economic power.
And right they are Where is your evidence?. Two options: 1. These clearly give the lie to Jordan Nash and others like him and may prove enlightening. I would appreciate your comments. Yes, please do go the website robertallen1 recommends and read the "Boxed Warnings". Is that medicine or military grade chemicals for war?
Which "boxed warnings? You really are an ignoramus. Now now, you were very concerned about libellous statements earlier. Go to the website you recommend, click the links you recommend.
See the two drugs it's being tested in combination with? Boxed Warnings is in bold letters, you can't miss it. Just another chemical drug to add to the thousands before it. A jury ruled that the university's patent was valid last July, but wasn't able to decide whether Protropin was based upon UCSF research or not. While the study is admittedly small, it appears to be a step in the right direction. Could you post a link to it and, of course, provide your comments. I totally agree with the idea that the fear of cancer is abused to make money.
Bad people with no mercy take advantage of those who are afraid to die. In line with this thought you may assume that the people who make the biggest profits are probably the biggest crooks, no? How ironic that these people are in fact your doctor, your so called specialists, the pharmaceutical industry who cooks your chemo and arranges your operations Check the facts and then look again. Read for example 'What doctors don't tell you' by Lynn McTaggert - one of the many scientifically proven books that just state the facts.
Sure beats me. Shame there is no convenient way to ask the geniuses at Disqus. One way or the other, I appreciate your removal of the post with the clearly libellous comment. This is now the third time he has falsely accused me of being a shill for the mainstream medical industry. I note that he has not responded to your post from a day ago asking for the same thing I've been demanding, evidence.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that like the other ignoramuses who have posted on this thread, he is trying to substitute tirade and accusation for lack of anything to back up his allegations against the mainstream medical profession. I assume you profession is journalism. Journalists should bring in information without judging. This despite the fact journalist have the right to have an own opinion.
This whats wrong here. You stated yourself that you don't have a scientific background. How can you judge? Believing the statements of the classical medicine which is backed up by the most criminal infiltrated organization called FDA is your right because every one has the right to be a believer but I enjoy the presence of people who think and believe but I prefer people who know and I disgust people who think they know.
My advise to you start studying human bio-chemistry on cellular level and when you are intelligent enough and understand things on cellular level to do the next step going to interactions on genetic level than you can do this whole thing over.
Assertion is worthless. Now, where is your proof that the FDA is a criminally-infiltrated organization--and by the way, if you support Burzynski who has been discredited by his peers i.
This is one of the most baseless, unsupported, documentaries I have ever seen. The narrator ruthlessly and unintelligently distorts everything that is said to her to make her point. This is the type of journalism that suits Al Jazira. Where is your data to support the term "quack"? If you do not understand that that is a fraudulent unsupported claim then your comprehension is very lacking. This is your fraudulent statement.
Your type of Medicine cant even cure the common cold, no advances here. Now herbology HAS been around for years and can rid one of the common cold. Thus if Neanderthals were smart enough to figure this out, then its apparent that they were far more intelligent than many so called modern homo sapiens. Thus Im happy to follow over years of knowledge with complete confidence. On the other hand, modern medicine has a very questionable track record of mostly around years or less.
Even with the most basic of illnesses like the common cold. There are thousands of falsified studies that can be easily found by actually studying.
I know you will never do this as this is your pat answer. The drug Prozac is one of hundreds of drugs as an example. Once again only asking questions but adding nothing of substance but baseless skepticism. Did someone just fart? Cause it really stinks of manure around here. As usual no real factual data of conclusive evidence at all to support any statements or claims.
Just some uneducated opinion masquerading as some sort of expert witness about a field that one has never even studied. Its a good idea not to call anyone a "quack" in any field when its obvious one has no rudimentary knowledge about.
Now its very ironic that someone without rudimentary knowledge in the field they are questioning calls someone who has ACTUALLY studied in that field a "quack". Claiming that there is a cure for the "common cold" is fraudulent, as there is no such malady, but rather a whole family of them, and thus no one treatment. Claiming that there is a cure for cancer is fraudulent, for like the "common cold" there are many forms and one treatment does not fit all, i.
Claiming that there are falsified studies, especially regarding Prozac, without listing any or providing sources is fraudulent. Claiming that the mainstream medical profession and especially the big pharmaceutical companies are in on a vast conspiracy without providing evidence is fraudulent. If I knew where you were and discovered that you were practicing medicine by you're own admission, you are not an M. All your claims are fraudulent as you reject all evidence presented without providing any evidence.
There are entire books written on Prozac and if you are too lazy to look them up then that's your own fault. I have read a few, since you don't even know they exist you know nothing about this topic. Since you have never tried eyebright and cayenne in a tincture and state that its dangerous without any double blind conclusive evidence your uneducated opinionated statement is more than obviously an outright lie. I have washed my eyes many times without anything but beneficial results and many people I know have done the same.
Fortunately, I don't treat anyone I just teach and freedom of speech is in the constitution. Thus any of your threats are only a joke. I know you would tear up the constitution in favor of giving little children Ritalin pushed on them by the drug pimping teachers and nurses.
I know you love pimp and hoe party's and support your local drug dealing chapter. I know that you think pimping drugs is advanced medicine. Though no matter how many times you tell lies I know they are not true. Hitler is wrong this time. You haven't presented any evidence, only assertions, allegations and anecdotes which, in addition to your lack of medical training, renders everything you posit sheer quackery, including your "cure" for cataracts which, as one of the moderators informed you, is dangerous and constitutes practicing medicine without a license.
Although you claim not to treat anyone, I repeat the warning contained in my previous post to you, "If I knew where you were and discovered that you were practicing medicine by you're own admission, you are not an M. No cure for cancer? I must be living a fraudulent lie then because my cancer has been successfully treated naturally without chemo or radiation.
As a matter of fact, I sat with quite a number of people in worse condition than me who were doing the same thing. I recently met an elderly fellow whose wife who was placed into palliative care, after failed attempts to treat her with chemo and radiation, was given medical marijuana oil and walked out of the palliative care facility weeks later.
There are numerous ways to cure cancer naturally, it's been done for thousands of years, long before western medicine intervened. It has been extremely damaging on society to be telling people there is no cure, giving people a death sentence when it is not true. I don't believe either your personal anecdote or your anecdotes about others, for were they true, they would have made headlines worldwide, despite your unsubstantiated claims about suppression by the medical industry.
And speaking of medicine, what are your credentials? Where are the peer-reviewed articles supporting your claim that there are numerous ways to cure cancer naturally? Again, what are your credentials? So far you've revealed yourself to be a dangerous fraud.
Your right; drug dealers masquerading as quack doctors are everywhere. Just say NO to drugs, and the drug cartels! Besides at a ratio of or more deaths per patient I like my chances with herbs that have been around for over yrs not some quack medicine for about 60 years or so. When you make allegations or proffer statistics, you must support them; otherwise, they are as fradulent as you are.
Whether you wish to acknowledge it or not, medicine has made considerable progress within the last 6, years. So taking your chances with solely with herbal treatment employed by people around 4, B. I hope you don't have children. Your usual pat answer. You make fraudulent claims that are completely unsupported. I have asked you many times to support the term "quack" by those beloved double blind peer reviewed conclusive evidence but all you offer is your uneducated opinion. Thus the fraudulent claims that you continually throw out are just that completely fraudulent.
Your history that you learned in grade school is sadly lacking modern medicine has not been around for years. Though herbalism has been around for yrs. I love those lies keep them coming Which corrupt drug companies are you referring to and where is the data to support your allegations? Just a lot of hot air--and once again, you and those like you are not only wilfully ignorant, but dangerous.
I fear for your children, if you have any. You can't be close-minded about this issue. Alternative therapies that work are out there. Not every doctor will tell you there is no alternative cure, only the ones who have been trained to think that way. This documentary fails to explain the exorbitant cost of conventional cancer treatment in the U. Talk about insult to injury! Don't you get it? Al Jazeera is happy to keep us misinformed.
Why don't you move to Europe and talk to the doctors there, maybe some of the patients who have been cured via alternative methods. This blind faith we have in these pill-pushers we call "doctors" in the U. Just which "alternate cures" work better than mainstream medicine?
And just how do you know that chemotherapy doesn't work? Why do you assert and accuse without any evidence or backup? And while we're at it, what are your medical qualifications? Right, because the inordinate number of cancer cases that have gone into remission are attributable to random magic instead of the carefully honed chemotherapy regimens they just happened to have had.
Stroll through the halls of St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, and then try to claim that chemotherapy doesn't work. At least 'conventional' ie: REAL medicine doesn't have the gall to claim infallibility, unlike the alternative therapy hucksters. Conventional medicine is even nice enough to provide stacks upon stacks of peer reviewed research supporting their treatments.
Again, this is something alternative practitioners are tellingly reticent to do the same. I appreciate that you sound intelligent, but it reminds me that even intelligent people can be incredibly uniformed and biased!
I encourage you to do a lot more research when you speak of alternative therapies. Yes, of course chemotherapy works, it is an incredibly strong and toxic medicine designed to target rapidly growing cells, ie cancer cells. Perhaps this aggression is what is necessary for such an aggressive illness, however there is no doubt that this therapy also attacks immune cells as they too reproduce very quickly.
Cancer occurs because our immune system is unable to rid the body of abnormal cells which we produce everyday. This is where alternative medicine is extremely helpful. Integrating the two medicines will help the body get back into a natural harmony and re-build itself. And yes, there most certainly are peer reviewed articles supporting the use of alternative therapies such as herbal medicine and acupuncture.
Look up Astragalus membranaceous and maintaining white blood cell levels while doing chemotherapy. Herbal medicine is not just a couple of drops of echinacea in your orange juice, naturopaths and professionally trained herbalists are probably a lot more informed on the human body than your GP. Of course there are far less peer reviewed articles for herbal medicine and acupuncture, no one can patent a plant or an ancient set of energy meridians in the body, and these practices prescribe treatments entirely on an individual basis so proper clinical trials are virutally impossible think of trying to do a double blind with acupuncture Whether you choose to be in on it or not, its going to happen!
And just where are these peer-reviewed articles supporting the use of alternative therapies for the curing of cancer, especially by herbs? Let's see direct references from mainstream medical journals. I have too much respect for my intelligence to open my mind to the quackery which you are promoting. People like you with neither medical training nor experience are dangerous. Anything else is quackery. There is lots of information that I take time to study, think through and make conclusions of my own, thank you very much.
And it does not end on medical education - alone it is absolutely meaningless considering the level of progress that we reached. It seams you are going against your own words. And there is no reason to involve religion, it is a completely different world that deserves a separate discussion. Just for the record - as I mentioned before, I do not reject any medical treatments provided, because the only way you could reject something is by trying it out yourself and proving it worthless, a scientific conclusion is not enough as long as we don't know and trust the people involved.
I feel that any discussion with you will end up right where it started, as I read you previous attempt to prove something to a person who was giving you rather smart arguments that you could at least take to mind, before insulting him. If your goal is to deny everyone who DARES to question something that you don't believe in for one reason or another, good luck with that. Unless you have medical training ,which I seriously doubt, you do not have the qualifications to make medical judgments.
If a mainstream medical doctor the only type of medical doctor there is , someone with years of training, education and yes education is paramount , experience and peer respect, tells me that there is presently no cure, then there is presently no cure and that's it.
Note:Red links are bolded because I'm not sure if they are alive or not. John Carter not bolded - died years - us vampires are really hard to get rid of , 22 May UTC.
I've gone through and re-added most of the listings under Paganism with sources and I've added a few new ones, as well. I've removed the sourced names from the above text. The following are names which I was not able to find sources for. Obama needs to be removed from the list of former atheists. The source says he was raised secular, but it never says he was an atheist. In fact it implies that he was always Christian.
Sefringle, one can hardly read Obama's personal testimony to his 'Spiritual Journey' and argue that he was "raised Christian". I've reproduced the text here to make this fact clear to the reader:. Feel free to study the source further I'll take a look at his books when I next get a chance.
These are not tenuous assertions strung together from interview excerpts or song lyrics; they are a man's own testimony about his upbringing an his faith, and they are quite clear about the circumstances of his upbringing- a secular one which did not adhere to any particular religion, but studied them all as 'human expressions', from an anthropological viewpoint which was espoused by a non-religious mother.
An assertion that he was 'raised Christian' holds as much weight as asserting that he was 'raised Hindu' or 'raised Hellenist' because of his study of such religions in youth and adolescence. Logan , 30 May UTC. He needs to be removed from that category. There are no sources to be found which are reliable saying he converted to anything apart from rastafarianism. The only thing spouted over and over again is the claim by the Archbishop Abuna Yesehaq, after Marley's death, which is hardly credible.
Pubuman , 23 May UTC. I can see the rationality of having separate lists of people who were at one point members of one faith only to leave it later. As this page seems to be the page with most active current discussion, I thought it reasonable to include this question here first. What do we think the standards for inclusion on a list of former believers should be? My own proposal, and I would be grateful for any reasonable feedback, positive or negative, would be the following.
We are basically dealing with two separate groups of people here. Those who are currently living, or who have only recently died, and those who are basically historical figures. I'm not trying to insult anyone by spelling out the obvious, simply pointing out that different circumstances and rules apply to different parties. For people who more or less qualify as "historical" figures, which I would roughly define as having died twenty or thirty years ago or more, I think the most reasonable and useful definition to use would be that to qualify for inclusion in that list a person should have converted from the religion in the "List of former x's" title before or during the period of their life for which they are most notable.
Thus, their period of greatest notablity would at least include some of the period when they could be or were contemporaneously known as "former adherents of Faith X".
My particular specialty is saints , and most if not all of those people by definition converted from whatever to Christianity before their period of greatest notability, particularly those who are canonized on the basis of being martyrs for Christianity. The guidelines for people still living or only recently died would I think be understandably more contentious, given the difficulties in determining when a living person's period of greatest notability is.
Here I acknowledge my own comparative lack of experience, and particularly welcome any responses. I think the same basic rules could still apply, with the proviso that people who have clearly retired from "public life" or however you want to phrase it and converted to some faith during this private, post-notability period would probably not be included in that list, or at least have indications of the fact that the conversion took place after they retired from the public eye.
However, in some cases which have already been mentioned elsewhere, such as David Berkowitz , who seemingly recently publicly converted to Christianity, would qualify, as this person is still considered notable enough that recent reports regarding his behavior are being published.
Another example, Tom Cruise , would I think reasonably be included in the list of former Christians, as the majority of his time in the public eye has included a period when he is noted for being a Scientology practicioner. Like I said earlier, I would welcome any reasonable responses, so that we can try to standardize the qualifications for these lists and thus reduce the possibility of contentious discussion in the future. You do not put the Jewish person named Bob Dylan on the List of notable converts to Christianity because in doing so you contradict yourself.
You do not contrive parameters in order to relieve that contradiction because doing so constitutes a form of "forcing. One does not force him onto that list if he doesn't fit. He happens to be Jewish. It is a list of Christians. Therefore he doesn't fit the parameters of that list. We don't present contradictions on Wikipedia.
We don't say that black is white. And we don't say that white is black. We don't blur distinctions. We respect differences. And yes, it is an offense to put a Jew on a list of Christians. As enthusiastic as the Christian philosophy of the salvation available through Jesus Christ may be, Jews do not accept that.
Jews consider that incorrect. Jews do not accept that Jesus was the Son of God. Jews do not accept that there is salvation in accepting Jesus as one's Savior. Jews do not accept the New Testament. You respect a Jew by not forcing him onto a list of Christians. Equally important Wikipedia has no allowance for contradiction that I am aware of. Bus stop , 25 May UTC. I think this should be enough. I found several notable sites mentioning Dylan's conversion to Christianity and then reconversion to Judaism.
This, however, was the most notable. Can't this little debacle be resolved just by placing the following blurb after his name: "converted to Christianity in and reconverted back to Judaism in xxxx"?
The article is clear -- it is a list of notable Christian converts who converted to Christianity at one point and time, irrespective of their current religious faith. Drumpler , 27 May UTC. If there is no source for Dylan being a Christian in or any year remotely close to then what justification is there for putting a non-Christian on a list of Christians?
Point of view pushing does not constitute a valid reason. We don't promote untrue information on Wikipedia. Therefore we stick to what is known. We don't venture into areas unsupported by sources, however much we may wish to make particular assertions. In point of fact Wikipedia frowns upon or should frown upon the assertion that any religion is superior to any other religion. That, by the way, includes the religion of Christianity.
If you have no source that Dylan is a Christian in , then leave him off this list. Bear in mind that there are only two ways that notable people can become Christians or Jews, for that matter. That is by birth or by conversion. Therefore you have two naturally arising lists. You have your list of notable Christians who were born Christian, and you have your list of notable Christians who converted to Christianity. In either case the lists contain only Christians, not anyone who ever dabbled in Christianity.
Please stop pretending that you can pull the wool over everybody's eyes and assert that your particular list is the list of anyone who has ever converted to Christianity. I find that particularly far reaching.
That is just a contrivance. Why doesn't the Jewish list, the List of notable converts to Judaism adopt such a tactic?
Because it is illogical? In point of fact the Jewish list clearly states in a tag at the top of the article that This page is a list of Jews. By the way, the List of notable converts to Christianity used to contain that tag, until it was strategically removed.
With that tag in place, any name can be challenged and potentially removed solely on the basis of the entry's not being Jewish. Why doesn't the Christian list uphold similarly high standards of inclusion? Because it has a point of view to push? Because proselytization is an important component of Christianity? In contradistinction Judaism does not proselytize at all. Why is an incalculably wider net being cast for the List of notable converts to Christianity?
Has there not been a long enough history of forced conversion at the hands of Christians of Jews to Christianity? The Pope himself has had to apologize to Jewry in recent years for the brutality of this. I think Christians should create their list based on sound parameters and should refrain from the slander inherent in forcing an apparent Jew onto what is ostensibly a list that should contain only Christians, that is, Christians who have arrived at their Christian identity by way of conversion.
We are to be especially careful as concerns incorrect information concerning living people. Dylan clearly isn't a Christian. How do you reconcile that with placing him on a list of Christians? Enhanced parameters and proselytization are one and the same in this instance.
If there exists no source for Dylan being a Christian in , or any year near , then there exists no justification for Dylan being on a List of converts to Christianity. Bus stop , 27 May UTC. We need to stop pushing points of view. If you have valid parameters for a list not contrived and an individual conforms to those parameters, then they clearly belong on that list.
Dylan doesn't happen to be Christian and the parameters articulated by some of the editors here happen to be contrived. It is only of secondary importance that Dylan's religion happens to be Judaism rather than any one of a number of other religions. But this is significant, because Christians have for centuries forced Jews to convert to Christianity.
Many Jews have been willing to give their lives rather than accept the religion of Christianity. Jews do not accept that Jesus was the Messiah. In point of fact the Jewish view is that Jesus was an ordinary man of flesh and blood, just like anyone else.
Jews do not accept the concept of the Immaculate Conception of Jesus. In point of fact the Jewish religion happens to reject all of that. The Pope has even in recent years apologized to the Jewish people for the long history of brutality directed at Jews in particular, and this brutality has included forced conversion to Christianity.
My point is, why would Wikipedia want to create a list that slanders a Jew by labeling him a Christian? Clearly he is not a Christian. That slander is totally out of place on Wikipedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia requires sources. Sources exist for the use of the word conversion in But those sources only allow for the use of the word in relation to Dylan in or thereabouts. The use of the word convert in does not in any way establish the fact of being Christian in In fact such a far fetched concept is ludicrous.
Dylan, in point of fact, has had nothing to do with Christianity in 27 years. And in case anyone hasn't been paying attention, Dylan has been involved in Jewish religious practices during those 27 years.
No one is arguing that Dylan is a pious Jew. That is not the standard that has to be established for basic Jewish identity. But the normal Jewish involvement in the holidays of the Jewish calendar, for instance, are sufficient to establish the sort of Jewishness that characterizes of your average American Jew.
In point of fact few American Jews could be characterized as being pious. Certainly no one has come forward with a source indicating Christian identity for Dylan in The very title of this list uses the word convert.
The title, in point of fact, uses the word convert as a noun. That noun refers ineluctably to the word Christian. Since Dylan is not a Christian it should be obvious to anyone that Dylan does not belong on this list. Logan -- Actually, contrived is very easy to understand. But those enthusiastic about contrivance tend to also be enthusiastic about obfuscation. Lists need to have simple parameters.
If lists don't have simple parameters they are immediately vulnerable to being contrived by those wishing to contrive them. The only parameters that are "bulletproof" against charges of contrivance are the simplest of parameters.
A list is not like a prose article. A list can never rise to the level of great writing. A list is a simple creature. When the parameters of a list cannot be made any simpler then we know we have a list that can't be said to have contrived parameters.
Actually, the difference between contrived parameters and uncontrived parameters is only one step, in this instance. Once you say that it is a list of anyone who has ever converted to Christianity you are complicating the parameters by one step.
The bare minimal parameters are "those Christians who have arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. Therefore the bare bones parameters are those who arrived at Christian identity by way of birth, and those who arrived at Christian identity by way of conversion. In either case we are talking about Christians. We are not talking about lapsed Christians. It is only by an additional added complexity that we arrive at the parameters that you are saying are not contrived.
It is only by saying that it is a list of all those who have ever converted to Christianity that you gain the incalculably larger group of people that includes Bob Dylan. It is a contrivance that was there from the start. On January 17, you or another editor had to add a note next to Bob Dylan's name because he did not quite fit onto this list. Every disclaimer exclaims loud and clear: contrived parameters. When you suggest putting Dylan and 2 or 3 other people in a separate section of this article, that act exclaims loud and clear, contrived parameters.
The List of notable converts to Judaism uses the simplest parameters. They are not only the simplest of parameters, but they are the most restrictive of parameters. The List of notable converts to Judaism does not cast nearly as wide a net in searching about for contents for that list.
That greater restriction results in a smaller list, but in a list with greater meaning. The Jewish list states exactly what it means from the outset and it sticks to it's parameters. It's parameters are not contrived so it does not require one sort of disclaimer or another. The List of notable converts to Christianity should have to live up to the standards of the List of notable converts to Judaism. The List of notable converts to Judaism should not have to lower it's standards to the level of the List of notable converts to Christianity.
Parameters should be simple because lists are simple. Parameters should also be simple because when they are at their simplest they cannot possibly be contrived parameters. You've argued that the parameters for the List of notable converts to Christianity are simple enough. You've argued that anyone can read the disclaimers at the top of the article and next to the individual names that require disclaimers. I say that you are arguing for low standards and contrivances.
That is about pulling the wool over people's eyes. I am against that. I still stand by my origional statement. Bob Dylan should be removed from this article.
Drumpler -- Parameters arise from subject matter. The subject matter at hand in these articles involves ways of arriving at religious identity besides birth.
There is only one other way of arriving at religious identity as concerns Judaism and Christianity besides birth, and that way is by means of conversion. It is based on the subject matter that we find the parameters.
We can have a list of notable people who were born Christian. The natural, logical cousin to that list is the list of notable people who converted to Christianity. But in both cases we are talking about Christians. We are not talking about people who at one time were Christians. If you want to put them on a list if that is your burning desire then they belong a list with natural parameters. The parameters have to arise from the subject matter.
If the subject matter involves past experience with a religion, then everyone on that list has to meet those criteria. But you do not compile a list of people meeting different parameters on the same list, and then differentiate between them with little disclaimers next to their names, and big disclaimers at the top of the list.
Disclaimers are not necessary on a list that is not contrived. We do not contrive parameters. That is a form of illusionism. If Dylan is not a Christian, which he is not, then he does not belong on a list of Christians. This is a list of Christians. This is a list of Christians who have arrived at Christian identity by means of conversion. They were not born Christian. Dylan is not a Christian by either means. Therefore he would belong neither on a list of notable people who were born Christian nor on a list of notable people who converted to Christianity.
Bus stop , 28 May UTC. The above question is the wrong question. If you define the parameters correctly then the question doesn't arise. It is only by removing the tag which said that This page is a list of Christians that the above question gains relevance. The List of notable converts to Judaism contains a tag at the top of the list stating that, This page is a list of Jews.
That leaves no ambiguity. That leaves no wiggle room for contrived parameters. If anyone should come along and feel that a name on the List of notable converts to Judaism is not in fact Jewish then they have clear reason to remove that name from that list on that basis alone. The List of notable converts to Christianity introduces ambiguity from the start by refusing to abide by clear guidelines.
This is clearly seen in the removal of the tag This page is a list of Christians from the top of the List of notable converts to Christianity. Avoid contrivance and the above question does not arise. It is only in order to cast a wide net that the List of notable converts to Christianity refuses to adhere to naturally arising parameters.
The List of notable converts to Judaism casts a much smaller net. It only includes on it those converts who are presently Jewish. And it provides the tools necessary for the removal of anyone on that list that any editor deems not Jewish, by explicitly stating at the outset that This page is a list of Jews.
Why are some editors at the List of notable converts to Christianity apparently unwilling to accept such restrictive guidelines as the editors at the List of notable converts to Judaism readily accept?Skousen is, to say the least, a bit extreme, but Beck is an unabashed admirer, and Skousen clearly influenced Beck's thinking and the formation of the 9/12 project (again, by Beck's own admission—he's not ashamed of it in the slightest).
© Copyright 2019 - Landing Page WordPress Theme