Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: John Ludgate <johnludgate@xxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:07:57 -1100
Hello Kent,
I am sure that that there are many others lurking on this list who have
very tender hearts and keen minds and loving ways and just do not want
to get into any arguments. For myself, I am happy to discuss any ideas
with anyone but do not care to be mired in arguments too but to
maintain respectful ways. I try to keep in mind the "clear tokens" that
I have received from "the Dawning-Place of the clear tokens" and remain
thankful for being guided to the "Dayspring of the signs" of God.
The "Manifestation of the Excellent Names" tells us in the Kitab-i-Iqan
that "Knowledge is of two kinds: Divine and Satanic. The one welleth
out from the fountain of divine inspiration; the other is but a
reflection of vain and obscure thoughts. The source of the former is
God Himself; the motive-force of the latter the whisperings of selfish
desire. The one is guided by the principle: "Fear ye God; God will
teach you;" the other is but a confirmation of the truth: "Knowledge is
the most grievous veil between man and his Creator." The former
bringeth forth the fruit of patience, of longing desire, of true
understanding, and love; whilst the latter can yield naught but
arrogance, vainglory and conceit."
So Bahaullah has given us a litmus test for knowledge. Judge it by it's
fruits. The Bahai faith is about love and peace and unity. May we each
find it in our lives.
with loving kindness,
john
John Ludgate
ph: 684-699-2097, fax: 699-2047, cell: 733-3566
On Oct 23, 2008, at 2:45 PM, compx2 wrote:
Thank you, John, for your wise and tolerant words. I can only hope
there are other wise and tolerant Baha'is lurking, or perhaps some
future Baha'i or future tolerant person will see your comment: "If you
think you possess a truth that someone else does not know, then tell
them. If they accept what you say then good, if not then leave them to
themselves."
The truth I possess is that it is a good thing that Baha'is don't
agree. I am happy for all of you that you have a different truth from
mine. I believe it will independently lead you to greater truth, if
you are indeed independently seeking truth. Your starting point is so
different from mine that we can hardly expect to agree on anything,
and that can lead to great, varied diverse and wonderful truths, if we
only keep investigating.
However, my truth obliges me to point out the intolerance of the views
the Baha'is here express so openly. It is not a pretty site from my
vantage point.
--Kent
On Oct 23, 3:51 pm, John Ludgate <johnludg...@xxxxxx> wrote:Hello Kent,
Each of us reflects the Revealed Word in a different manner just as
the
many colored objects in the world have different colors caused by
reflections from the one physical sun. Baha'u'llah tells us to focus
beon
the Source of the Light and try to be the purest reflectors we can,
concord
pious and humble and set our goals towards unity and light and
with
instead of division and fire and hatred. The Bahai revealation will
result in the World becoming a most beautiful place. It appears that
you have a heartfelt concern for the future of the Faith but the
Ancient of Days is in charge so don't worry. Baha'u'llah has come
the "new wine skins". God will perfect His Light.
"Truth is one point which the foolish have multiplied." There is a
quote that goes something like: If you think you possess a truth that
someone else does not know, then tell them. If they accept what you
say
then good, if not then leave them to themselves. Also, when you talk
keepto
someone the Writings say: "use words as mild as milk" and your words
will be a "fount of wisdom". This has been very hard for me but I
trying. "Consort with the followers of all religions." "Pray to God
saysand
He will give you Light."
There is another quote in the very beginning of Kitab i Iqan that
the
something like "unless and until he stops regarding the words and
deeds
of mortal men as the standard...." which is very beautiful and a
guiding light.
peace, unity and loving kindness,
john
John Ludgate
ph: 684-699-2097, fax: 699-2047, cell: 733-3566
On Oct 22, 2008, at 6:46 PM, compx2 wrote:
Hi Mike,
I am reading the primary literature, and despite your insistence,
themselvesliterature does not state, show, or even clearly imply linearly
increased cancer risk.
You, however, extrapolate data to assert it. The studies
datacontinue to recommend moderate alcohol use. You read into the
howeverwhat you want to, and accuse me of not being able to do so.
Certainly, I could interpret the data any way I choose, but I am
rather letting the studies you cite interpret their own data.
And what they say is that moderate alcohol use is okay. You,
,studies.extrapolate and interpret to make a point that is not in the
isWhy? Is it your version of the Baha'i Faith that makes you do so?
--Kent
On Oct 21, 11:58 am, mikera...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:The major problem I have here with both Tim's and Kent's position
that neither one seems to be reading the primary literature that I
anam
citing in defense of my premise that alcohol is a carcinogen.
Whether
you drink one cup a day or more than two it only linearly increases
your cancer risk. About the only people who dispute this are Tim
dtheyKent. Based on what they are presenting, I can only assume that
day,supportare sifting through it all looking for one-liners that seem tothetheir position. Even worse, kent cited a one liner in support ofnotion that alcohol is not carcinogenic below a couple drinks a
associatedonly when you read this article you will see that indeed it is
stated
my exact premise. While there are a multitude of articles on the
subject proving my point, I'm going to stick with one kent cited
just
to keep it simple, and I'll abbreviate it, if you want the whole
article, just check back a few posts.
"Alcohol and Breast Cancer in Women
A Pooled Analysis of Cohort Studies
Stephanie A. Smith-Warner, PhD; Donna Spiegelman, <snip>
JAMA. 1998;279:535-540.
Objective.— To assess the risk of invasive breast cancer
evaluatewith total and beverage-specific alcohol consumption and to
[CI],whether dietary and nondietary factors modify the association.
<snip>
by>99%Data Synthesis.— For alcohol intakes less than 60 g/d (reportedof participants), risk increased linearly with increasing intake;
the pooled multivariate relative risk for an increment of 10 g/d of
alcohol (about 0.75-1 drink) was 1.09 (95Qonfidence interval
1.04-1.13; P for heterogeneity among studies, .71). The
multivariate-
adjusted relative risk for total alcohol intakes of 30 to less than
60
g/d (about 2-5 drinks) vs nondrinkers was 1.41 (95% CI, 1.18-1.69).
Limited data suggested that alcohol intakes of at least 60 g/d were
not associated with further increased risk. The specific type of
alcoholic beverage did not strongly influence risk estimates. The
association between alcohol intake and breast cancer was not
modified
by other factors.
Conclusions.— Alcohol consumption is associated with a linear
increase
in breast cancer incidence in women over the range of consumption
reported by most women. Among women who consume alcohol regularly,
reducing alcohol consumption is a potential means to reduce breast
cancer risk."
literatureMy point in citing this is that no where in the scientificis there any study relating to breast cancer that puts a lower
threshold value on the amount of alcohol that can be consumed
safely.
The risk of cancer increases linearly with consumption. Both Kent
toliterature.and
Tim propose that there are lower non-carcinogenic limits to alcohol
consumption, a theory that is not supported in the primary
thatThis paper is not alone in this claim. I'll recite one more paperI encourage these two to review:
"Alcohol as a cause of Cancer
May 2008
Authors
Samara Lewis1, Suzanne Campbell2, Emma Proudfoot2, Adèle Weston2,
Trish
Cotter1, James F Bishop1
The risk alcohol poses for cancer is large. Four standard drinks a
day
increase the cancer risk by 22%
or with eight standard drinks a day the cancer risk increases by
90%.
For each standard drink per day,the risk of breast cancer
specifically
increases by around 10%. "<snip>
Kent, how can you call yourself a fair minded person and fail
sincerityrespect the research in these two papers. Your avoidance of
acknowledging this information casts serious doubt on your
hasand credibility.
doesWhat confuses people here is that the american cancer societydayput an advisment out that alcohol consumption above two drinks perrisksincreases your cancer risk, but fails to advise people about thebelowbelow two drinks per day. Interestingly, they specifically state
that
there may be health benefits for certain cardiovascular patients
two drinks per day and that people should seek the counsul of their
primary care physician when deciding what to do. (Which is exactly
what the Baha'i position is). Both Kent and Tim are at best
providing
us with a poor reading of this advisement that would seem to suite
their own purposes.
What's been pointed out to me is that regardless, Baha'u'llah
foridden this drink and anything else which consumes reason and I
thecan
appreciate that this is the core reason for not drinking. But what
alcoholpoint I want to drive home is that independent of the Baha'i
position
our society has done a miserable job of educating people about
drinkand in spite of the overwhelming research on the subject in many
areas, our society has exhibited a double standard that emboldens
people like Tim to forward such absurd claims that people should
for their health. This reminds me of the folks who back in the day
adovacted smoking for long life.
I'mHey, for the last time, I have no real position on prohibition.just advocating education.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: compx2
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- References:
- Religious Tolerance
- From: compx2
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: compx2
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: mikeran37
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: compx2
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: Douglas McAdam
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: compx2
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: mikeran37
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: compx2
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: mikeran37
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: compx2
- Re: Religious Tolerance
- From: compx2
- Religious Tolerance
- Prev by Date: Re: Religious Tolerance
- Next by Date: Re: Religious Tolerance
- Previous by thread: Re: Religious Tolerance
- Next by thread: Re: Religious Tolerance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading