All hail the mighty social network site, they do it again. Whatever the reason, someone has put a post up, that, as far as yours truly can ascertain, is complete "Borrocks".
Here it is:-
"I've just heard some really shocking news. The Royal British Legion are not selling poppies in certain areas on Nov 11 this year. This is because some minorities say that it will upset them. I say sod off ... The poppy is a symbol of reverence for our fallen heroes of all the wars the BRITISH military have fought in. BRITAIN STAND UP AND SAY 'WE WANT THE POPPY SOLD EVERY WERE IN THE UK'. THIS IS OUR RIGHT TO REVERE OUR FALLEN.. PLEASE RE-POST"
So this has also been followed up by the Royal British Legion saying:-
"There's a rumour going around on Facebook that poppies not being sold in certain areas this Remembrance period. It is categorically untrue. Poppies will be sold as normal. Pls share this! MaxRes."
Well we all know that the gutter press will leap on the rumour as being Gospel, but why does anyone post this tripe in the first place? (Takes a deep breath) I'll tell you why, because they are too small minded to actually find facts and publish them (or too stupid to know where to look), if you are going to scandalise and stir ire then try and be a tad more factual.
Now, for all those who re-posted the first quote, could you please be a smidgeon more selective and review what goes on your status, be aware that Mr Paul Chambers joked about blowing up Robinhood Airport on Twitter and was arrested for his joke, a touch of caution could be advisable methinks.
Meanwhile in the news Sir David Attenborough is fighting the corner of science by protesting against the teaching of creationism in schools. The following is not attributed to the great man.
"Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.
But this is not enough. An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. The teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools."
I have gone through my life being told many things that I have later discovered to be untrue (Father Christmas was probably the biggest disappointment) and the earth being created in 7 days I always believed to be metaphorical and not literal, reasons for my stance on this would probably stem from the fact that people quote from a 17th century translation of a Latin text that was translated from a Greek Text that was translated from Hebrew (or Aramaic in some parts), as you see if you look at it from this point of view the "Chinese whispers" aspect falls into play (as in the message "send reinforcements we're going to advance" turning into "Send three & fourpence we're going to a dance").
Just for the record though, if you maintain that Adam was made from "the dust of the ground" and that Eve was formed from his rib. Does this not follow a very basic explanation of evolution?
And to add that slap in the face to the preposterous:-
"According to the Genealogies of Genesis, Adam died at the age of 930. With such numbers, calculations such as those of Archbishop Ussher would suggest that Adam would have died only about 127 years before the birth of Noah, nine generations after Adam. In other words, Adam's lifespan would have overlapped that of Lamech (father of Noah), at least fifty years. Ussher and a group of theologians and scholars in 1630 performed calculations and created a study that reported the creation of Adam on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 am and lived until 3074 BC. There was controversy over the fact that Ussher believed the whole creation process occurred on that day."
(Methinks they had attacked the communion wine with a bit of a run up)
Please inform me if you have UN-equivocal information that would set me straight on this, but I believe myself to be a logical being, and these things do not sit in the parameters that I consider "Logical".
Faith However is a completely different matter, you can believe (and people do) in omnipotent beings, and that you should live your life to moral standards (after all the whole of society is based on this), but please don't demand that I accept that, the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, George W. Bush is intelligent or any other fantastical spasm of a deranged mind, you are quite welcome to put these delusional thoughts up for inspection (as is your right) but please don't be offended when they are ripped apart, and don't hide behind the cloak of righteousness that shrouds so many pious theological nutbags (many of which have recently been exposed as kiddy fiddling spineless slimeballs).
Here it is:-
"I've just heard some really shocking news. The Royal British Legion are not selling poppies in certain areas on Nov 11 this year. This is because some minorities say that it will upset them. I say sod off ... The poppy is a symbol of reverence for our fallen heroes of all the wars the BRITISH military have fought in. BRITAIN STAND UP AND SAY 'WE WANT THE POPPY SOLD EVERY WERE IN THE UK'. THIS IS OUR RIGHT TO REVERE OUR FALLEN.. PLEASE RE-POST"
So this has also been followed up by the Royal British Legion saying:-
"There's a rumour going around on Facebook that poppies not being sold in certain areas this Remembrance period. It is categorically untrue. Poppies will be sold as normal. Pls share this! MaxRes."
Well we all know that the gutter press will leap on the rumour as being Gospel, but why does anyone post this tripe in the first place? (Takes a deep breath) I'll tell you why, because they are too small minded to actually find facts and publish them (or too stupid to know where to look), if you are going to scandalise and stir ire then try and be a tad more factual.
Now, for all those who re-posted the first quote, could you please be a smidgeon more selective and review what goes on your status, be aware that Mr Paul Chambers joked about blowing up Robinhood Airport on Twitter and was arrested for his joke, a touch of caution could be advisable methinks.
Meanwhile in the news Sir David Attenborough is fighting the corner of science by protesting against the teaching of creationism in schools. The following is not attributed to the great man.
"Creationism and ‘intelligent design’ are not scientific theories, but they are portrayed as scientific theories by some religious fundamentalists who attempt to have their views promoted in publicly-funded schools. There should be enforceable statutory guidance that they may not be presented as scientific theories in any publicly-funded school of whatever type.
But this is not enough. An understanding of evolution is central to understanding all aspects of biology. The teaching of evolution should be included at both primary and secondary levels in the National Curriculum and in all schools."
I have gone through my life being told many things that I have later discovered to be untrue (Father Christmas was probably the biggest disappointment) and the earth being created in 7 days I always believed to be metaphorical and not literal, reasons for my stance on this would probably stem from the fact that people quote from a 17th century translation of a Latin text that was translated from a Greek Text that was translated from Hebrew (or Aramaic in some parts), as you see if you look at it from this point of view the "Chinese whispers" aspect falls into play (as in the message "send reinforcements we're going to advance" turning into "Send three & fourpence we're going to a dance").
Just for the record though, if you maintain that Adam was made from "the dust of the ground" and that Eve was formed from his rib. Does this not follow a very basic explanation of evolution?
And to add that slap in the face to the preposterous:-
"According to the Genealogies of Genesis, Adam died at the age of 930. With such numbers, calculations such as those of Archbishop Ussher would suggest that Adam would have died only about 127 years before the birth of Noah, nine generations after Adam. In other words, Adam's lifespan would have overlapped that of Lamech (father of Noah), at least fifty years. Ussher and a group of theologians and scholars in 1630 performed calculations and created a study that reported the creation of Adam on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 am and lived until 3074 BC. There was controversy over the fact that Ussher believed the whole creation process occurred on that day."
(Methinks they had attacked the communion wine with a bit of a run up)
Please inform me if you have UN-equivocal information that would set me straight on this, but I believe myself to be a logical being, and these things do not sit in the parameters that I consider "Logical".
Faith However is a completely different matter, you can believe (and people do) in omnipotent beings, and that you should live your life to moral standards (after all the whole of society is based on this), but please don't demand that I accept that, the earth is flat, the moon is made of cheese, George W. Bush is intelligent or any other fantastical spasm of a deranged mind, you are quite welcome to put these delusional thoughts up for inspection (as is your right) but please don't be offended when they are ripped apart, and don't hide behind the cloak of righteousness that shrouds so many pious theological nutbags (many of which have recently been exposed as kiddy fiddling spineless slimeballs).
No comments:
Post a Comment