PDA

View Full Version : JREF refuses reciprocality?


Pages : 1 [2]

Elijah777
29th May 2006, 02:27 AM
Actually, I am a baptized Christian, a Presbyterian. I went to church this morning. On my bookshelf I have a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, which I got after four years of Sunday School.

I have my reasons for going to church. I also have my reasons for being fascinated with religion, and not just Protestantism. One of the reasons I want to visit Florence is that it was the birthplace of Dante, one of my favorite writers. My girlfriend is Jewish and I attend her seder each year. I feel like religion should be about love instead of hate- and the one thing it definitely should not be about is ridiculous prophecies and superstitions.

Here's a serious question- why do you believe God's will is so simple that you, a mortal, can comprehend it? It's your right to have faith in God, but why have faith in your own flawed interpretation of scripture?

One last thing- your post that lists "Vincent's encounters" is a clear violation of the JREF forum rules. You can't cut and paste large segments of copyright material. Don't do it again, or the mods will be all over you.

Hallo Admiral - i grew up an Anglican until i realised at the age of 28 that i had NOT been Baptized - ONLY Christened as a baby - This is NOT The Baptism JESUS experienced and the Gospel Commands.

Please confirm that you REMEMBER your own Baptism?

The Presbyterian denomination makes the same mistake.

Also, never said that God's will is SIMPLE, but our Choices are :

Follow The Teachings of Christ in The Gospel.

Reject The Teachings of Christ in The Gospel.

Believe The Bible is True.

Disbelieve it as fiction.

Each Choice is Catered for by God.

Blessings and Curses basically.

As for me and my House we choose to Serve The Lord.

Now to The Prophecies - which is the ONLY reason i am in this thread and forum.

You are reading from the NRSV - okay - Behold :-

Matthew 18 : 11 (MISSING)
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Matthew+18+%3A+11

Acts 8 : 37 (FUNDAMENTALLY IMPORTANT and MISSING)
http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Acts+8+%3A+37

Try this for yourself with these 16 verses:-

Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4 Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Romans 16:24.

Here's the search engine page :- http://www.devotions.net/bible/00bible.htm

So, you may care to call the Translations of Prophecy posted herein as "my warped interpretation" if you must (since you were the FIRST to reply and have followed these threads)....Nevertheless, i CAN PROVE that the NRSV bible itself is WARPED.

Try opertaing a VCR by using a manual with 16 paragraphs MISSING...

BTW i HATE religion - NOTHING BUT ARGUMENTS...

Yes i LOVE God and JESUS - Amen

Yes i LOVE His Holy Word - Amen

Yes - LOVE is The Key - God IS Love - Amen

Yes Love is The Final Solution - Amen

However, Who is God for those who Hate Him? Or REFUSE to Accept His Eternal Truth....?

Here we NEED to Look into The Holy Scriptures....

NOT the NRSV Admiral - i MUST Reveal...or the NIV or the NKJV or the RSV (in the English tongue)....

They are ALL Corrupt.

Sure The Fundamental Gospel is there - in that we are agreed...

And you don't necessarliy even need a Bible to Be Baptized and Saved - that is a Matter of Faith - and the Simple Spoken Gospel is often Sufficient for a man to Get Saved....

The Full Gospel is NEEDED for Forums like this and other areas, where people want to Insult God and try and shred His Word...

This is their look-out - My Job is TO WARN PEOPLE !!!

Hence, (on Thread Topic) My Application to PROVE The Holy Bible of 1770 AD is Pure Truth, by Revealing Fulfilled Prophecies, and now - having to Plan for Florida Legal Action - By Faith - hence getting involved with this particular thread in the first place...

CONCLUSION - Love that you went to a Service on Sunday - Amen...

Final Truth is - Once FULLY Saved and Following The FULL Gospel by Faith...you are IN THE CHURCH - 24 X 7 X 52

Keep The Sabbath Holy and let your girlfriend KNOW for Certain that The Lord JESUS Christ IS The Messiah that her family is WAITING FOR..

When He Returns The Second Time for The Church it will be The First Time for the Remnant Hebrews, still waiting for the King of Israel to Arrive.

Romans 11:22 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&verse=22&version=9&context=verse)
Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

The_Fire
29th May 2006, 02:37 AM
Elijah, provide evidence that:
Your God exists
Your God is the one True Master of the Universe
That your God isn't lying
That the bible is the Truth
That it wasn't the devil whom wrote the bible
That this have anything to do with the OP.

Elijah777
29th May 2006, 02:48 AM
Doesn't sound too bad so far, right, delphi_ote?



What about the "Free Will" to eat from the tree? Was this "god" a "He Man Woman Hater"? Why did this "god" put this tree there in the first place if this temptation schtick was a "work from the devil"?

Simple - To Separate The Sheep from The Goats, The Wheat from The Chaff - To SEE, in Real Time - Eventually, WHO is Worthy of Eternal Life and Heaven....

Mankind and Satan both Failed Miserably...

Hence The Need For The Messiah - Christ - to Be Born and Be Crucified and then Resurrect..

NOW - The Fruit of The Tree of Life is AVAILABLE....

God can Raise The Dead...

CHOOSE - Christ and His Way - ETERNAL LIFE - or Your Way - Eternal Damnation - These are the Facts...

This is why the The Fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was there in the first place...

The LORD actually caught Satan in that one - LYING and BRINGING in Death upon earth...HENCE - he is BANISHED FROM HEAVEN FOREVER - and Destined For The Lake of Fire for Eternity...

That's his problem !!

JESUS Solves this Problem, in His Holy Blood, for all mankind, cursed BECAUSE of The Devil...and this Solution is THE CROSS !!!

It's not God you should be UPSET with - IT'S our Common Foe - THE DEVIL...

JESUS Loves you...Amen

Mark 16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Elijah777
29th May 2006, 03:06 AM
Elijah, provide evidence that:
Your God exists
Your God is the one True Master of the Universe
That your God isn't lying
That the bible is the Truth
That it wasn't the devil whom wrote the bible
That this have anything to do with the OP.

Here is ALL the Evidence you will EVER need :-

The Lord JESUS CHRIST....Amen

Breach of Rule 4 removed.

Isaiah 53:5 - Written around 712 years before JESUS was Born.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him;
and with his stripes we are healed.

As per your previous warning you have been suspended for 7 days.

GzuzKryzt
29th May 2006, 03:14 AM
...
What about the "Free Will" to eat from the tree? Was this "god" a "He Man Woman Hater"? Why did this "god" put this tree there in the first place if this temptation schtick was a "work from the devil"?

Your response:

Simple - To Separate The Sheep from The Goats, The Wheat from The Chaff - To SEE, in Real Time - Eventually, WHO is Worthy of Eternal Life and Heaven....

Mankind and Satan both Failed Miserably...

Hence The Need For The Messiah - Christ - to Be Born and Be Crucified and then Resurrect..

NOW - The Fruit of The Tree of Life is AVAILABLE....

God can Raise The Dead...

CHOOSE - Christ and His Way - ETERNAL LIFE - or Your Way - Eternal Damnation - These are the Facts...

This is why the The Fruit of the knowledge of good and evil was there in the first place...

The LORD actually caught Satan in that one - LYING and BRINGING in Death upon earth...HENCE - he is BANISHED FROM HEAVEN FOREVER - and Destined For The Lake of Fire for Eternity...

That's his problem !!

JESUS Solves this Problem, in His Holy Blood, for all mankind, cursed BECAUSE of The Devil...and this Solution is THE CROSS !!!

It's not God you should be UPSET with - IT'S our Common Foe - THE DEVIL...

JESUS Loves you...Amen

Mark 16
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

I do not understand how your response relates to my inquiry. You simply keep on "preaching", seem unable to participate in a productive discussion - and you keep on derailing this thread.



Also: If "mankind failed miserably" as you state in your post, this means you, Elijah777, too.
It most likely means, your preaching failed, too.



If you have something to contribute to thread, we will gladly listen.

GzuzKryzt
29th May 2006, 03:15 AM
Ok, perhaps after your suspension, Elijah777.

The_Fire
29th May 2006, 04:12 AM
The fact that Darat have had to suspend you again due to the same behaviour you have earlier been suspended for does not bode well for your future on this board. My prediction is that you'll end up banned if you continue.

Here is ALL the Evidence you will EVER need :-

The Lord JESUS CHRIST....Amen



Provide evidence the mentioned character existed at all.




Isaiah 53:5 - Written around 712 years before JESUS was Born.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him;
and with his stripes we are healed.


Not evidence for anything else than SOMEONE were treated badly. The word "Post-Diction" does come to mind.
NOT EVIDENCE!

I look forward to your return and hope you can cought up REAL evidence.

Mojo
29th May 2006, 04:34 AM
... never in the history of mankind since the Resurrection has the Closeness of the Second Coming been SO Imminent.Well, yes, any future event will become more imminent with time. So what?

geoman
29th May 2006, 04:44 AM
That's a heck of a prediction, Elijah. Can you tell us when it will come to pass? A year from now, two years, ten years?

I ask because I've never been to Italy, and I've resolved to go before I die. It would be a shame if, on Judgement Day, all I was thinking about was how I never got to see Florence. Should I rush there this summer, or do I have a few more years?

Admiral, just bear in mind that Florence in summer is really hot & full of tourists. If the common wisdom is that the Second Coming won't happen soon I'd maybe hold off until the autumn or maybe even next spring.

Of course, if Judgement Day IS going to be some time this summer then there will be loads of people thinking just like you & you won't be able to get tickets for the Uffizi at all.

steenkh
29th May 2006, 06:28 AM
Mankind and Satan both Failed Miserably...

Hence The Need For The Messiah - Christ - to Be Born and Be Crucified and then Resurrect..
So let us see ... Mankind failed some kind of test - and because of that God becomes angry (although he is omniscient and knew the result in advance) so that the only way to stop his own anger is to have his own son crucified??? The logic of this scheme is not immediately obvious to me, but then, I am no god! And this God seems not to be a particularly nice character either, so I think I will skip the worshipping!

delphi_ote
29th May 2006, 07:35 AM
Slow down - you are simply MISUNDERSTANDING...

God GIVES all of us FREEDOM TO CHOOSE - Free Will.

Otherwise we are all just PUPPETS on strings - would you like it that way?

You can choose to do Evil or choose The Good - we all have that Right.

So if Hitler was free to choose his own actions, how are his actions a part of prophesy and God's plan? If Hitler was not destined to make the choices he made from birth, then God could not be omniscient. All that nonsense you said about God knowing everything about me wouldn't be true of Hitler.

If, however, God made Hitler and God knew everything he was going to do, then whatever Hitler did was God's plan. Hitler could then only have the illusion of free will and nothing more, because his actions are all pre-determined.

Darat
29th May 2006, 08:30 AM
Just as a FYI - Elijah777 has now been banned, see:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1669500#post1669500

steenkh
29th May 2006, 08:43 AM
Just as a FYI - Elijah777 has now been banned, see:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1669500#post1669500
He was probably hoping for it. Surely, it must take an awful lot of time to write all that multi-coloured drivel.

The_Fire
29th May 2006, 09:13 AM
Does this mean I've won the million?:D

delphi_ote
29th May 2006, 09:15 AM
Just as a FYI - Elijah777 has now been banned, see:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1669500#post1669500
He won't be missed.

Admiral
29th May 2006, 09:17 AM
So if Hitler was free to choose his own actions, how are his actions a part of prophesy and God's plan? If Hitler was not destined to make the choices he made from birth, then God could not be omniscient. All that nonsense you said about God knowing everything about me wouldn't be true of Hitler.

If, however, God made Hitler and God knew everything he was going to do, then whatever Hitler did was God's plan. Hitler could then only have the illusion of free will and nothing more, because his actions are all pre-determined.

Actually, that's not necessarily true. It could be more like the Greeks' version of omniscience- although the gods knew everything that was going to happen, it didn't change the fact that humans were free to act as they wished. Gods didn't control their lives. Imagine you're watching Casablanca for the seventh time- yes, you know what's going to happen, but is it your fault that Ingrid Bergman got on that plane? (Sorry if I ruined it for anyone.)

So, imagine that God knew about Hitler, but couldn't stop it because to do so would interfere with free will. (It sounds cruel indeed, but maybe that's the nature of the universe.)

Anyway, thanks for the travel tips, geoman.

delphi_ote
29th May 2006, 09:38 AM
Actually, that's not necessarily true. It could be more like the Greeks' version of omniscience- although the gods knew everything that was going to happen, it didn't change the fact that humans were free to act as they wished. Gods didn't control their lives. Imagine you're watching Casablanca for the seventh time- yes, you know what's going to happen, but is it your fault that Ingrid Bergman got on that plane? (Sorry if I ruined it for anyone.)
If I made the film, yea.
So, imagine that God knew about Hitler, but couldn't stop it because to do so would interfere with free will. (It sounds cruel indeed, but maybe that's the nature of the universe.)
Then this version of God cannot be omnipotent.

Admiral
29th May 2006, 10:41 AM
If I made the film, yea.

Then this version of God cannot be omnipotent.

Most Christians don't think of God as omnipotent. I'm not sure if Elijah ever said God was omnipotent (I can't read his entire posts, they give me headaches), but it's possible for God to know the future without actually determining it.

Did God "make the film"? That's a good question. I don't know who it was, but some physicist worked Einstein's theories into a model of spacetime as a four-dimensional structure where we pass through "slices" of spacetime. In this sense, every moment is another slice in this rigid, predetermined structure. What built the structure? Can free will exist in a predetermined universe? What is this discussion doing in the Million Dollar Challenge forum when it clearly belongs in the Religion and Philosophy forum? Good questions all.

Admiral
29th May 2006, 10:42 AM
Double post by accident.

TjW
29th May 2006, 11:50 AM
Double post by accident.
Or is it? Can there be "accidents" in a predetermined universe?

Admiral
29th May 2006, 12:03 PM
Or is it? Can there be "accidents" in a predetermined universe?

All too true. Please permit a correction: "Double post as it was always meant to be."

ETA-Better yet, "Double post as was predicted in the BOOK OF MARK!!!"

Curnir
29th May 2006, 12:07 PM
All too true. Please permit a correction: "Double post as it was always meant to be."

ETA-Better yet, "Double post as was predicted in the BOOK OF MARK!!!"

No no no it was predicted in 'the amber enchantress' by Troy Denning.

Lamuella
29th May 2006, 12:21 PM
I think you can dig up the definition of "much", find a survey on what percentage of Americans view skeptics extremely negatively, and google the date of the article in the Toronto Observer in which Randi reiterated his "shot himself in the head" fable without any assistance from me.


A google search for "toronto observer" and "james randi" pulls up no results.

You made the claim. If you can find the time to back it up, that'd be great.

Cyphermage
29th May 2006, 12:42 PM
A google search for "toronto observer" and "james randi" pulls up no results.

You made the claim. If you can find the time to back it up, that'd be great.

Sorry. It was the Toronto Star.

Wikipedia and numerous other places on the Web mention it.

From Wikipedia's James Randi entry...

"However, Randi made a similar statement ("The scientist shot himself after I showed him how the key bending trick was done.") in the August 23, 1986 Toronto Star that seemed to validate Geller's charge. "

steenkh
29th May 2006, 12:43 PM
Most Christians don't think of God as omnipotent.
That surprises me! The catholic church has always maintained the theory that God is omniscient and omnipotent, and I am not aware of other churches that have a lesser version of the Christian God.

Admiral
29th May 2006, 01:31 PM
After taking a look around, I've come to the conclusion that I'm probably wrong that "most Christians don't think of God as omnipotent," simply because Christianity is extremely fractured and because the vast majority of Christians lack understanding of basic Christian philosophy. I regret my mistake.

However, the word "omnipotent" never shows up in the Bible, and in fact at one point (Titus 1:2) Paul states that God "never lies"- already a limitation on his power. There are other philosophical arguments against omnipotence, but they're part of a different discussion.

The way I meant it was this- God doesn't necessarily DETERMINE actions. He doesn't create disease or cause car crashes, and Hitler wasn't part of a "divine plan." So is God to blame for car crashes and disease, just because he doesn't use his powers to stop them? That's a question I still haven't found a satisfying answer for. (I'll let you know if I do.)

Aepervius
29th May 2006, 01:36 PM
That surprises me! The catholic church has always maintained the theory that God is omniscient and omnipotent, and I am not aware of other churches that have a lesser version of the Christian God.

As far as i remmember it, God by definition is the 3-O : Omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

Now it could be this is only the catho credo, and other (calvinist/mormon/protestant/later saint /whatnot) have another...

princhester
29th May 2006, 03:48 PM
Sorry. It was the Toronto Star.

Wikipedia and numerous other places on the Web mention it.

From Wikipedia's James Randi entry...

"However, Randi made a similar statement ("The scientist shot himself after I showed him how the key bending trick was done.") in the August 23, 1986 Toronto Star that seemed to validate Geller's charge. "

I haven't been able to find it anywhere except on Wikipedia, and no reference is given there, it's just a bald statement. Can you find any other reference? It wouldn't surprise me one way or the other what the facts are, but I must say they seem a bit thin on the ground at the moment.

Cyphermage
29th May 2006, 04:45 PM
I haven't been able to find it anywhere except on Wikipedia, and no reference is given there, it's just a bald statement. Can you find any other reference? It wouldn't surprise me one way or the other what the facts are, but I must say they seem a bit thin on the ground at the moment.

I'm sure someone with a paid subscription to a newspaper database can pull the article in question, and see if it contains the quoted line. While it's possible that someone made it up, I've seen it discussed in other articles on the case.

At this point, the edition of that newspaper for the date specified either contains an article on Randi with that sentence in it, or it doesn't, and speculating how "thin" the evidence for it is one way or another is really a fruitless exercise.

It's unfortunate that newspapers don't put their archives up for free on the Web, but when they can make money selling access, there's no incentive.

I'll be surprised if it's all some sort of devious lie, but then I've certainly been surprised before. :)

delphi_ote
29th May 2006, 09:42 PM
After taking a look around, I've come to the conclusion that I'm probably wrong that "most Christians don't think of God as omnipotent," simply because Christianity is extremely fractured and because the vast majority of Christians lack understanding of basic Christian philosophy. I regret my mistake.

However, the word "omnipotent" never shows up in the Bible, and in fact at one point (Titus 1:2) Paul states that God "never lies"- already a limitation on his power. There are other philosophical arguments against omnipotence, but they're part of a different discussion.

The way I meant it was this- God doesn't necessarily DETERMINE actions. He doesn't create disease or cause car crashes, and Hitler wasn't part of a "divine plan." So is God to blame for car crashes and disease, just because he doesn't use his powers to stop them? That's a question I still haven't found a satisfying answer for. (I'll let you know if I do.)
In a sense, it's the Job question. The Bible really doesn't really answer it either.

Elijah777's prophesies imply The Holocaust was part of God's plan. That's exactly what the dipwad was spewing all over our boards before he got banned. And he never did elaborate on his comment that putting Islam to the sword was "long overdue."

Admiral
29th May 2006, 10:14 PM
In a sense, it's the Job question. The Bible really doesn't really answer it either.

Elijah777's prophesies imply The Holocaust was part of God's plan. That's exactly what the dipwad was spewing all over our boards before he got banned. And he never did elaborate on his comment that putting Islam to the sword was "long overdue."

The Bible never gives a satisfying answer, yeah. God just gives Job everything he ever wanted at the end of the book, then it ends. There's a lot of discussion about that issue over on a thread on the Religion and Philosophy forum.

Elijah777 is just plain nuts- he'd fit in at a Crusade.

Keep The Sabbath Holy and let your girlfriend KNOW for Certain that The Lord JESUS Christ IS The Messiah that her family is WAITING FOR..


I don't think I'm going to do that. Somehow I sense she wouldn't appreciate it much.

Jackalgirl
30th May 2006, 01:12 PM
Just as a FYI - Elijah777 has now been banned, see:http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1669500#post1669500

Oh thank you. Thank you thank you thank you. I come here for intelligent discussion, not to be preached at by blasphemers (I would call anyone who a) believes in God and b) claims to know the mind of God a blasphemer, that is). The only reason I've stuck around on this thread is because what the other people have been saying is so interesting, but boy was it painful to have to scroll over someone who ate too much Bible and Skittles and threw up on the screen...

-- Kat

ETFix: bad code.

Spektator
30th May 2006, 02:32 PM
I came here for abuse. No, wait a bit, for an argument.

delphi_ote
30th May 2006, 02:48 PM
I came here for abuse. No, wait a bit, for an argument.
No you didn't.

Paul2
30th May 2006, 04:58 PM
I'm sure someone with a paid subscription to a newspaper database can pull the article in question, and see if it contains the quoted line. While it's possible that someone made it up, I've seen it discussed in other articles on the case.The fact that it's been discussed is irrelevant as to whether the quoted line is true or not, eh?

At this point, the edition of that newspaper for the date specified either contains an article on Randi with that sentence in it, or it doesn't, and speculating how "thin" the evidence for it is one way or another is really a fruitless exercise.

It's unfortunate that newspapers don't put their archives up for free on the Web, but when they can make money selling access, there's no incentive.

I'll be surprised if it's all some sort of devious lie, but then I've certainly been surprised before. :)So, doesn't all that add up to ignoring the article because it can't be verified?

Cyphermage
30th May 2006, 05:11 PM
The fact that it's been discussed is irrelevant as to whether the quoted line is true or not, eh?

It could be a widely disseminated lie that no one has bothered to contest for many years.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

Cyphermage
30th May 2006, 05:26 PM
So, doesn't all that add up to ignoring the article because it can't be verified?

Just paid the Toronto Star $3.95 for the article. The quote is correct.

GzuzKryzt
30th May 2006, 05:53 PM
Does anyone else find it as amusing as I do that GzuzKryst is:

(a) questioning Cybermage's conclusion that the public are more likely to be pursuaded by people who are not A-holes,

(b) calling people "f*cking retards"

while (on the very same page) stating that Cybermage's opinions will matter more if he is polite?

You have a serious hypocriticality problem to deal with, dude.

Princhester, I just reread this thread and assume you mean point (a) in this post which I did not yet comment on.

I do not question the conclusion that a fly is caught easier with honey.

I did question Cyphermage's assumption or did doubt a basis for his opinion "...when the perception of much of the public is that the debunkers are a bunch of obnoxious A-holes..."

Of course, Cyphermage, you are entitled to your opinion.

princhester
30th May 2006, 10:09 PM
OK, I see what you mean. You were only questioning the conclusion that "the perception of much of etc". By including "when" in your quote, I thought you were disputing a hypothetical situation (ie "if the perception of much of etc" then the cause of skepticism is hurt. My mistake.

GzuzKryzt
2nd June 2006, 09:17 PM
Two new applicants appeared in the challenge log a short while ago, and while I understand that people like Dr. Drew cannot just change the text in the application, sign it and think their claim will be accepted, I do not understand why JREF would not grant an applicant the same legal protection THEY THEMSELVES REQUEST before proceeding.

Rule 7 [which Dr. Drew changed to include a part giving him the same 'rights']
When entering into this challenge, the applicant surrenders any and all rights to legal action against Mr. Randi, against any persons peripherally involved, and against the James Randi Educational Foundation, as far as this may be done by established statutes. This applies to injury, accident, or any other damage of a physical or emotional nature, and/or financial or professional loss, or damage of any kind. However, this rule in no way affects the awarding of the prize.

So why can't JREF surrender all rights to legal action as well? That's just wrong [there can be provisions for scam artists, etc, but if an applicant asks that they not be blamed for accidents, injuries, etc, they sure should be allowed to exercise this option]?:confused:

Has your thread resulted in a clarification for you, Pinocchio?

Pinocchio
5th June 2006, 07:30 PM
Has your thread resulted in a clarification for you, Pinocchio?
Sure. And not only that, I have realized some new facts about the JREF, too.:)

By the way, I have a question. We know that the JREF does not engage in cases where human life could be endangered, but what about animal life? For instance, a laboratory mouse. A guy wants to demonstrate that his therapeutic touch works. Two groups of mice are infected with some deadly bacteria, which means that at the end of the day, at least one [possibly two :D] group would be dead. Would that be acceptable?
Just wondering, you know...

delphi_ote
5th June 2006, 07:38 PM
Sure. And not only that, I have realized some new facts about the JREF, too.:)

By the way, I have a question. We know that the JREF does not engage in cases where human life could be endangered, but what about animal life? For instance, a laboratory mouse. A guy wants to demonstrate that his therapeutic touch works. Two groups of mice are infected with some deadly bacteria, which means that at the end of the day, at least one [possibly two :D] group would be dead. Would that be acceptable?
Just wondering, you know...
You know what? That is a very interesting question.

Anyone know if this has been addressed before?

Czarcasm
5th June 2006, 08:40 PM
How close to the target body do you have to be to "therapeutically" touch them? It seems to me that you would still be exposing the testee to the deadly bacteria. You would have to find something that is deadly to the mouse but poses no danger to humans.

drkitten
6th June 2006, 08:04 AM
You know what? That is a very interesting question.

Anyone know if this has been addressed before?


I suspect if it came up, it would be examined on a case-by-case basis. Given Randi's oft-stated belief that TT is total hogwash, I would not be surprised if he refused to submit lab rats to pointless torture, either.

delphi_ote
6th June 2006, 10:11 AM
I suspect if it came up, it would be examined on a case-by-case basis. Given Randi's oft-stated belief that TT is total hogwash, I would not be surprised if he refused to submit lab rats to pointless torture, either.
I predict the same, but I'm still curious about the official JREF stance on paranormal animal testing.

Spektator
6th June 2006, 10:25 AM
I predict the same, but I'm still curious about the official JREF stance on paranormal animal testing.
Well, JREF might just agree if the test animal were Bigfoot.

delphi_ote
6th June 2006, 11:11 AM
Well, JREF might just agree if the test animal were Bigfoot.
Boy I walked right into that one.

Or did I? Ninja Balloon Escape! :balloon: