John Knight's Comments

Sunset on 2009 by Madame Donna C.

Dec 31, 2009 | recommended: 1 | comments: 1

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 11:21pm EST

We have a fine tradition, Great shot (Damn telephone wires . . ; )

Wind: Ethical Power of the Future.. by Justmeans Better. Business.

Dec 31, 2009 | recommended: 1 | comments: 3

in reply to a comment by Gary (aka: William Pinn) J.

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 11:06pm EST

Gary . . . that's nuts.

Good Science, Bad Politics by Dan E.

Dec 24, 2009 | recommended: 5 | comments: 25

in reply to a comment by Dan E.

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 11:02pm EST

Rory,

"What they do provide evidence of is dishonesty and data manipulation on the part of a handful of climate scientists."

Correct, and the reaction of those that are basing their grand scheme on "the science", was to brush aside what those e-mails revealed. That ends those folks credibility, for me. Real champions of science, don't pretend that corruption of the science, is immaterial, nor do they simply assume that the corruption is limited to only that which has been clearly uncovered. That ain't scientific at all.

Scientist Predicts 50 Years of Cooling by Col. George W.

Dec 28, 2009 | recommended: 6 | comments: 57

in reply to a comment by Dorothy H.

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 10:50pm EST

Dorothy,

"Sometimes, I think all the big wigs know a carastophie is coming, and they are using our money to dig themselves great hidey holes, to hold up in, locking the rest of us outside to die."

This is really quite rational, and I suspect quite true. It has been concluded by the "globalists", I believe, that the earth cannot sustain it's current population, and certainly not the population that can be expected to exist in the near future . . . So, it follows that many will die, sooner or later, and it's no big leap to think the "leaders" and highly successful folks, feel it might as well be the "best and brightest", that survive to make a grand new civilization, after the fall . . . Indeed, it can easily be rationalized that it is their duty, to insure their own survival, at all costs. And, the longer it takes for the mass dying to begin, the more damage to the natural environments, and scarce resources, those who make it through, will have to cope with. Best to get it over and done with sooner, rather than later. Saves many lives that way ; )

I believe that this is why the powers that be in this world, are ever attacking religion . . . cause people that believe in the God of Abraham (for instance), just ain't EVER going to agree with such "sensible" approaches to the problem.

Religion and Politics: Do Not Touch! by Kathy W.

Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 12 | comments: 133

in reply to a comment by Farmer Slim aka Michael H

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 9:52pm EST

Slim,

"And yet the Christian can claim that the bible is the word of god without proving that there is a god . . "

Prove to whom? Just as soon as He is "proven" to anyone's satisfaction, you reclassify them as someone that needs to prove something to some mysterious final authority, which just so happens to not have had His existence proven to them.

This is a "shell game", I say, wherein ONLY those who are unaware of God's existence, like yourself, are considered valid judges of the matter . . . BFD ; )

This may be satire, but... by Walker Bennett, SF Author

Dec 31, 2009 | comments: 1

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 8:59pm EST

The I.D. cards sound like a swell idea, but you just know some unscrupulous types are gonna start counterfeiting them . . .. ; )

Religion and Politics: Do Not Touch! by Kathy W.

Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 12 | comments: 133

in reply to a comment by Dave A.

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 7:10pm EST

It is kinda amazing to me, Dave, that so many people seem oblivious to the vast carnage and virtual slavery that non-religious ideologies and movements, have resulted in.

It's as though there were three sorts of people on earth; Religious, non-Religious, and the incredibly zany and violent aliens that pretended to be non-Religious folks ; )

Religion and Politics: Do Not Touch! by Kathy W.

Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 12 | comments: 133

in reply to a comment by Carla G.

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 6:49pm EST

What a hack . .

Religion and Politics: Do Not Touch! by Kathy W.

Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 12 | comments: 133

in reply to a comment by Dame Ruth, Chief Executive Elitist D.

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 6:00pm EST

Ya know, Dave, I think a great deal of the confusion and controversy about those laws given to those people, arises because we tend to forget that they were a very "crude" sort of raw material for making a new society. These were folks that had only know slavery, for hundreds of years. God was essentially working with social/political retards, conditioned to utterly cruel and crude treatment of themselves and others.

Today, we take it for granted that much time and struggling is needed, for a society to put off the "shackles" of it's past, and grow more civilized and just . . . but many speak as thoogh those were modern Americans God was utilizing and instructing. No, they were not, and treating them as though they were, would have been awfully silly of that God fellow, I figure anyway ; )

Religion and Politics: Do Not Touch! by Kathy W.

Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 12 | comments: 133

in reply to a comment by Dame Ruth, Chief Executive Elitist D.

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 5:13pm EST

Dave,

Jesus was speaking to people for whom the "old testament" rules, still applied. Jesus did NOT reverse any rules in Mathew 5:38~ , that I can see . . .

Ye have heard that it hath been said . . .

Is NOT an explicit reference to law, but to what some had heard said. Just because some penalty phase of a legal proceeding demanded harsh treatment for harsh behavior, that does not mean that the law is being contradicted in any way by Jesus telling people how to respond to personal conflicts . .

Similarly, I think you are being a bit sloppy in just assuming Jesus was contradicting Mosaic Law regarding divorce, merely because he explained some of the reasoning behind it having been given. He doesn't actually rescind anything, but pointed out that God provided some slack, for the hard hearted folks that couldn't cut it, with regard to God's instructions on marriage and it's implications for we humans.

Rather than weaken my proposition that those laws were specific to those actual people, in those actual circumstances, I think you strengthen it here, in a way . . though to grasp this concept fully, I believe some careful consideration may be required . .

Religion and Politics: Do Not Touch! by Kathy W.

Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 12 | comments: 133

in reply to a comment by John Knight

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 4:44pm EST

Karl,

" . . and other words applied to those things which must not be questioned, Religion is formost among them."

I have no idea where you got the notion that religion is not to be questioned . . . It seems rather obvious that all sorts of questioning goes on all the time . . Perhaps you've noticed the many religions and denominations of the religions . . ?

"If God Gave us Jesus, God ALSO took him from us."

God never "Gave us" Jesus, in the possession sense; All souls are His. And He never "took him from us"; the mission he came here to accomplish, was accomplished. Your logos renders God some sort of "Indian giver", if He manifested Himself in anything but an immortal human body, born to remain in the flesh forever . . . He had other plans ; )

Religion and Politics: Do Not Touch! by Kathy W.

Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 12 | comments: 133

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 3:42pm EST

Wilka,

"Religion is not sacred; or, at least, shouldn’t be impossible to hold dialogs about."

Of course there can be dialog, but not if one starts the dialog like this;

"I’d like to tell you, straight up, that I don’t, won’t, can’t, shan’t believe the fairy tale that religion is."

That is a declaration that you are not wiling to "dialog" at all, but that you have closed your mind to even the possibility that those you would dialog with, are doing something rational. Obviously, if one said to non-religious people that they are just entertaining a fairy tale about reality, one would not be opening a real dialog . .

Religion and Politics: Do Not Touch! by Kathy W.

Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 12 | comments: 133

in reply to a comment by Dame Ruth, Chief Executive Elitist D.

John Knight Dec 31, 2009, 3:28pm EST

I differ somewhat with Dave on the matter of what exactly happened to the "old testament law", in terms of it's relevance to us. God specifically provided rules for the people He freed from Egypt, and He says so. Other people were not bound by those rules, and even the Israelites were only bound by some of them, when they were in the "wilderness". Other rules were for when they "came into the land" He promised them, to live. Rules about remaining outside the camp, for instance, if one was sick, did not apply when folks lived in houses and towns and all; People were cared for in their homes, naturally.

Jesus provided more general "rules" which apply to all who are his servants. The nation God originally provided more detailed rules for, does not exist any longer. It simply makes no sense to speak of those Israel specific rules as applying to other people in other times and places. I don't believe Jesus "invalidated" them, so much as they became somewhat irrelevant, when those they were given for, ceased to be a nation.

The Climate Email Fraud-A Repost by Sue B.© The Sting IS Worse Than the Buzz

Dec 28, 2009 | recommended: 5 | comments: 42

in reply to a comment by Dave A.

John Knight Dec 30, 2009, 8:09pm EST

Dave,

"It's a form of engagement, John, . . "

If we assume it's not a scam.

" . . and certainly the expectation in any of these schemes is that the polluters will exploit the system to their best benefit, but that controls will result in a benefit as targets are reached."

Right, ten or fifteen years into this massive scheme that can be "played" by unscrupulous big shots, we will know . . . well, absolutely nothing, since the folks running it already demonstrated they have spawned a crooked science game, to make things appear favorable to the initiation of the scheme . . . And, when confronted with glaring evidence that they have spawned such a thing, they pretended it was nothing even worth stopping to consider.

This is what a hoodwinking would look like, I say.

Response to Slim from LYR, Dec. 13 by Aniko

Dec 19, 2009 | recommended: 4 | comments: 128

in reply to a comment by ben S.

John Knight Dec 30, 2009, 7:46pm EST

Dave,

You can spout all the crap you like about how brilliant your rationalizations are, but I will point out they are rationalizations if I wish. That adds something to a discussion with someone that pretends their imagination is a little window on ultimate truth, I feel.

"Those that imagine that governments of large countries remove the possibility of citizen influence misunderstand that large numbers have large influence."

That is PURE rationalization, spoken as if indisputable fact, with a bizzaro mock denouncement of the imaginations of those who dare to doubt your personal theories . . . in my eyes.

Dec 28, 2009 | recommended: 5 | comments: 42

in reply to a comment by Dave A.

John Knight Dec 30, 2009, 6:53pm EST

Dave,

"My take on carbon credits in a geopolitical sense differs in that I see it (in part) as a check on unbridled multinational corporatist chicanery. That's the boogie man that deserves greatest recognition."

So, what stops that boogie man from "buying" some . . . motivated scientists, politicians, and mass media, so as to set up a system it can manipulate at will?

What would such a hoodwinking look like, do you suppose? What would be the tell-tale signs that it was afoot?

I really don't think you grasp how clever, hyper-wealthy, devious, and powerful, some boogie men are ; )

Dec 28, 2009 | recommended: 5 | comments: 42

in reply to a comment by Dave A.

John Knight Dec 30, 2009, 6:02pm EST

(Thanks, Sue, and have a happy not-New Years Eve ; )

Dec 28, 2009 | recommended: 5 | comments: 42

in reply to a comment by Dave A.

John Knight Dec 30, 2009, 5:48pm EST

Sue, I don't know of any comments besides this one, that you have ever removed . . .

Dec 28, 2009 | recommended: 5 | comments: 42

in reply to a comment by Dave A.

John Knight Dec 30, 2009, 5:32pm EST

Sue,

" . . can you tell me what other casual accusations and slander I have hurled at you?"

Yes, I can, but my interest is not in dwelling on the particulars. Here, you clearly implied that I had been petty and vindictive about something as trifling as the accidental removal of a comment. That ain't me, ain't my nature or history. As the old saying goes; With friends like you . . . ; )