Messianic Jews say they are persecute...

Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 72074 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#37329 Jun 18, 2012
I forgot to add - Puff was a poem written at Cornell, and Peter once said in an interview that if he wanted a song about drugs he would written a song about drugs - instead of the alleged veiled references..
Eric

Montgomery, IL

#37330 Jun 18, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
There are entire discussion forums dedicated to the real meaning of that song. I know, I googled the question after I posted it. The consensus was that the HUAC (house unamerican committee) was looking for excuses to disparage the folk singers by linking their songs to drugs - Puff was written 1959 , well before the Beatles craze. I always thought it was a drug song too.
Mary and Paul live in my county - Mary owns a flower shop - retail plant nursery.
Hey, I've always been a big PP&M fan. Saw Peter & Paul last Fall in a tribute concert to Mary. They still have it. And, they are still socially relevant.
JOEL PASTAKIA

Mumbai, India

#37331 Jun 18, 2012
The origin of sentience from insentient matter, big bang and macro evolution are scientific myths conceived and propagated by ignorant scientists.
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37333 Jun 18, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
I guess MUQ is unaware of the peer review process that transpires before one is able to be published in a scientific journal.
Years ago, my thesis went thru that process. Me, a podunk grad student with a third rate project in a fourth rate journal. The peer review process was something akin to walking over coals barefoot. I cant imagine the fun that must be had trying to publish in a first rate journal.
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Like Random Mutation, Natural selection, this Peer Review must be the third pillar of Modern Atheist Trinity!!

Don't you see all that tripe published in sceintific journals about evolution being reviewed by peers.

It depends who are the "peers" and how are they selected and do all "peers" agree on any thing? I doubt very much.

Was Darwin's books reviewed by so called "peers" or he himself became a peer?
JOEL PASTAKIA

Mumbai, India

#37334 Jun 18, 2012
PHYSICAL VERSUS SUPRAPHYSICAL:

1) Peer review in the sciences or humanities, as the name suggests, is a superficial exercise involving a group of like-minded people who function from the same exteriorized and ordinary degree of the senses and the sense-informed mind consciousness. These peers agree to agree or agree to disagree on any chosen topic that lies within the range of their inferential understanding while ignoring or opposing anything that exceeds this narrow range.

2) i have yet to see solid physical reasoning and the barest of verifiable physical proof supporting big bang, emergence of sentience from insentience and macro-evolution. You know like-minded people think and behave alike. All their puerile theories and mass superstitions are non-starters and are being shattered one after the other.

3) Proof of the physical should be given in physical terms, while proof of the supraphysical should be accessed from the supraphysical level and should not be inquired into using gross physical methods and logic based on the physical laws.

4) One can't mix up the two - physical and the supraphysical so long as the consciousness is divided.

5) The gross physical analyzes cannot demonstrate the existence of the supraphysical except for the fact that it cannot explain consciousness, mind, life, emotions, personality, ego, will and other sentient entities in gross physical terms.

6) The proof of the supraphysical can be provided in the physical sense if it manifests in the physical and that too provided the seer wishes to demonstrate the supraphysical power that he commands.
JOEL PASTAKIA

Mumbai, India

#37335 Jun 18, 2012
If a majority of the peers acquiesce to save face or to push through a hypothesis based on specious findings, the model is accepted but upon greater scrutiny and emerging new facts it falls into disrepute or is obstinately held up in defiance. LOL.
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#37336 Jun 18, 2012
Liam R wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG!
Science is NEVER "believed" on "good faith". In science, it is all about confirmation and replication. If any scientist makes a claim, then other scientists in that field will examine their results. If it seems plausible, then some will repeat the experiments to seek confirmation through the ability to repeat the test and get the same results.
How many formulas have you personally verified that they are true? How many things written in your books have you personally verified?

You "assume" that since they are written in the book, they "must have been verified" by some one. That is the "god faith" on which whole system works.

If someone starts doubting every thing written in every book and start verifying personally, he will not even graduate till his whole life is ended.

Today we need more blind faith than any times in the human history to continue with our lives.!!
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37337 Jun 18, 2012
Theory of evolution is such a theory where all the peers have ganged up and support each other so that it stays put as a scientific theory.

They know less than 1ppm and rest 999,999 ppm is assumption and guess work....all these figures we see on "evolution ladder" are the works of creative artists based on a few broken bones or a part of teeth!!

But it is presented to us as a full scale working model covered with skin and hairs and matching headgear to look like what they want to tell.

And the deception continues and every peer says vow, that is fantastic!!
JOEL PASTAKIA

Mumbai, India

#37338 Jun 18, 2012
Before we proceed to macro-evolution, let us first see the proof about how insentient matter produced sentience.

Evolution comes much later.

First let us discuss the origin of sentience from insentient matter.

So?

(smiles)
JOEL PASTAKIA

Mumbai, India

#37339 Jun 19, 2012
CURES OR PALLIATIVES?

1) What modern science calls curing a disease actually amounts to suppressing the symptoms of a disease.

2) Neither the true causes nor the complete cures of diseases are understood by modern medicine even say where a simple condition like fever is concerned.

3) Where emotional disorders or psychiatric distortions are concerned, well, the scientists have no clue and not even a palliative and so due to this pathetic state of ignorance they keep declaring that so and so psychiatric disorder like say homosexuality can no longer be considered a disease but is more a lifestyle choice.

4) Sheer ignorance of its root cause and total lack of understanding about its cure has compelled them to take homosexuality off the list of diseases.

5) As a result, homosexuals and bisexuals are rejoicing and attacking anyone who points out this discrepancy to them.
JOEL PASTAKIA

Mumbai, India

#37340 Jun 19, 2012
COLIN:

Don't talk to me until you learn to clean your bum after defecating with water using a hand-held water spray. Stop using toilet paper you unhygienic and stinky chap.

(smiles)
Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#37342 Jun 19, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
Like Random Mutation, Natural selection, this Peer Review must be the third pillar of Modern Atheist Trinity!!
Don't you see all that tripe published in sceintific journals about evolution being reviewed by peers.
It depends who are the "peers" and how are they selected and do all "peers" agree on any thing? I doubt very much.
Was Darwin's books reviewed by so called "peers" or he himself became a peer?
Why are you anti-Science? Is it that much of a threat to you?

I thought you work in a technical specialty. You once said you were an "Electronics Engineer" and if I recollect during that faux paus a while back where your real name and info was published on line, your work adress had something to so with the hydroelectric industry. You must use applied science every day.
Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#37343 Jun 19, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
How many formulas have you personally verified that they are true? How many things written in your books have you personally verified?
You "assume" that since they are written in the book, they "must have been verified" by some one. That is the "god faith" on which whole system works.
If someone starts doubting every thing written in every book and start verifying personally, he will not even graduate till his whole life is ended.
Today we need more blind faith than any times in the human history to continue with our lives.!!
Intellectually lazy position.
Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#37344 Jun 19, 2012
JOEL PASTAKIA wrote:
CURES OR PALLIATIVES?
1) What modern science calls curing a disease actually amounts to suppressing the symptoms of a disease.
2) Neither the true causes nor the complete cures of diseases are understood by modern medicine even say where a simple condition like fever is concerned.
Joel, you really should make an effort to read other posts before you offer an opinion.

We went through this already. In medicine, there is practice and there is theory. They are not always connected, and in fact, they dont even have to be.

Scroll back.
Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#37345 Jun 19, 2012
JOEL PASTAKIA wrote:
CURES OR PALLIATIVES?
3) Where emotional disorders or psychiatric distortions are concerned, well, the scientists have no clue and not even a palliative and so due to this pathetic state of ignorance they keep declaring that so and so psychiatric disorder like say homosexuality can no longer be considered a disease but is more a lifestyle choice.
4) Sheer ignorance of its root cause and total lack of understanding about its cure has compelled them to take homosexuality off the list of diseases.
5) As a result, homosexuals and bisexuals are rejoicing and attacking anyone who points out this discrepancy to them.
Me thinks the lady doth protest too much.
JOEL PASTAKIA

Mumbai, India

#37347 Jun 19, 2012
Both creationism and science stand on roughly the same footing. The reality is very different.
Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#37348 Jun 19, 2012
JOEL PASTAKIA wrote:
Both creationism and science stand on roughly the same footing. The reality is very different.
No offense intended, but you are hardly a role model to tell us about reality.
Frijoles

South Glastonbury, CT

#37349 Jun 19, 2012
MUQ wrote:
<quoted text>
How many formulas have you personally verified that they are true? How many things written in your books have you personally verified?
You "assume" that since they are written in the book, they "must have been verified" by some one. That is the "god faith" on which whole system works.
If someone starts doubting every thing written in every book and start verifying personally, he will not even graduate till his whole life is ended.
Today we need more blind faith than any times in the human history to continue with our lives.!!
In your scientific travels, have you ever encountered something called "Analysis of Variance" (ANOVA) or R Squared?
MUQ

Dammam, Saudi Arabia

#37350 Jun 19, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you anti-Science? Is it that much of a threat to you?
I thought you work in a technical specialty. You once said you were an "Electronics Engineer" and if I recollect during that faux paus a while back where your real name and info was published on line, your work adress had something to so with the hydroelectric industry. You must use applied science every day.
I am not against science at all, I am only against the Pseudo Science, where people use speculation and pass it off as science.

Science deals with the material world and material subjects. If one does not have data, one should keep quite.

To use science and try to prove that no Creator exists is in my view the most non scientific thing to do.

In the same way to call this Blind Theory of Evolution (I call it blind, because when there is no creator, no plan, no design, no purpose, what else to call it but blind) as scientific theory is against science.

Whatever I studied in my Science and Engineering and in my whole professional carrier, never proved to me or gave any evidence that there is no Creator in this Universe and that Blind Theory of Evolution is truth.

In fact the more I see and know of the universe, the more I see and know about plant and animal life, increases my faith and belief in Creator and His Power and His Wisdom and His knowledge.

Those must be very unfortunate scientists who see all these things and then announce "There is no evidence of any Creator in the Universe"!!
MUQ

Qatif, Saudi Arabia

#37351 Jun 19, 2012
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
In your scientific travels, have you ever encountered something called "Analysis of Variance" (ANOVA) or R Squared?
No please explain it to me and please do not direct me to google or wikipedia or any site!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ridgewood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Yankee talk back 4, or is it 5 (Aug '08) 13 min jimi-yank 344,032
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 1 hr Bruddah Z 336,827
BOLT-ON REVEALED as FALSE NEWS MAVEN ! 1 hr The Bronx CheerLe... 1
Fox is going down (Dec '09) 1 hr The Bronx CheerLe... 7,325
Mets talkback (Dec '07) 1 hr jimi-yank 47,193
OBAMA is the BEST PRESIDENT EVER (Nov '10) 1 hr Guinness Drunkard 20,369
jets talk back (Dec '07) 1 hr jimi-yank 16,004

Ridgewood Jobs

Personal Finance

Ridgewood Mortgages