New Post in "The Way I See It"

[Kiah]

Also absolutely without relevance to the conversation; in particular to the sermon to which Emerson points. When the sermon addresses radicals in Islam, it addresses those who are NOT adherents to their own professed religion, but instead violate it outright. There is no mention nor use of idols, neither there, nor in Islam (which expressly forbids it, as does Christianity).

Either you completely misread my post or you're just riled up and swinging at the wind for some reason. By "idols" I was referring to people idolizing or demonizing a knife maker for his personal beliefs. Nothing to do with Islam, Christianity, or any other religion. Settle down.

There is no grief, however, in belief in God, nor in living up to that belief. What fault do you find in the time-honored edict to "Love thy neighbor as thyself?"

I'm confused by your inability to use the quote button. Are you still talking to me? If so, I find no fault in that line, and I don't know exactly where that question came from.

 

[Bimmer1]

Smaller company+less employees+smaller production runs=no excuse.
If he was pumping out as many blades as they, then there'd be an excuse.
He isn't, so that's not an excuse.

If your employees and equipment will only let you do so much then what difference does the number of knives produced make? Aren't you making an assumption that smaller numbers produced should produce better overall quality?

If Sara Lee is putting out a million cakes per day and my neighbor's 5 year old is putting out 10 cakes per week with an easy bake oven then how could we expect her quality to be better than Sara Lee? Or even equal to it just because she is putting out less cakes. She still have less employees and manufacturing that is not near the same as Sara Lee.

 

[stabman]

If your employees and equipment will only let you do so much then what difference does the number of knives produced make? Aren't you making an assumption that smaller numbers produced should produce better overall quality?

If Sara Lee is putting out a million cakes per day and my neighbor's 5 year old is putting out 10 cakes per week with an easy bake oven then how could we expect her quality to be better than Sara Lee? Or even equal to it just because she is putting out less cakes. She still have less employees and manufacturing that is not near the same as Sara Lee.

If your employees and equipment allow you to make a certain number of knives and you stick to that number, then there is no excuse for shoddy workmanship.
Unless you're saying that EKI is the 5 year old baker of the knife world?
You might want to pick a better analogy if that isn't the idea you're looking to convey.

 

[IGotStabbed]

Ernest Emerson made a choice when he decided to go political.
So did I. I no longer own Emerson knives.

Respect to you man!
***

There is absolutely no way Emerson is producing at capacity. He's limiting supply on purpose to drive up demand and price. There is noway he's at capacity. And with the new expansion, it's now even more ridiculous!

 

[stabman]

Ernest Emerson made a choice when he decided to go political.
So did I. I no longer own Emerson knives.

Hell, you should have sent them to me; I'd have paid shipping even.
I may think his politics are wrong, and not appreciate the tone of certain posts, but when the knives are good, they're good.:thumbup:

P.S.-offer stands for others as well. I especially like plain edged, black finish CQC-12's.

 

[Bimmer1]

If your employees and equipment allow you to make a certain number of knives and you stick to that number, then there is no excuse for shoddy workmanship.
Unless you're saying that EKI is the 5 year old baker of the knife world?
You might want to pick a better analogy if that isn't the idea you're looking to convey.

Better yet.......perhaps you and a few others should take your money and start a knife company and see how well you do. Then maybe you would stand in a better position to make judgements.

Seriously, I don't think the new manufacturing facility is even up and running yet. It was just purchased recently. If owning and operating a knife company were so easy then I suspect that more people would jump into the ring.

Maybe Emerson is the 5 year old baker of the knife world compared to what you are trying to compare them to. How many people that are 100% anti-Emerson have actually seen the inner-workings of the Emerson factory? I for one haven't seen the inside so I don't find it fair to make comparisons since I have not seen the manufacturing facilities of any knifemaking facility. Until I have seen every single one of them it is really difficult to make a judgement call or real comparison other than finished product for the money.

 

[stabman]

.
Maybe Emerson is the 5 year old baker of the knife world compared to what you are trying to compare them to.

And you're a FAN?
With fans like that, who needs detractors?

 

[Bimmer1]

And you're a FAN?
With fans like that, who needs detractors?

I don't recall ever saying that I agree with everything others have complained about out here. I have made statements about what others believe and the lifestyle beliefs of many Emerson fans. I did not express that I am apart of the entire scenario. But.......so what if I am? Does it really matter who adopts the lifestyle and who does not?

We are getting into that zone of trying to prove points of view when a belief system has already been adopted. We could make post after post about all of this but what is the point?

I like Emerson knives. I like Spyderco. I like Benchmade. I like many custom makers. I even own some Cold Steel products!!!!

I don't have to agree with every single aspect of a maker's worldview or a manufacturers view point in order to be a happy customer. I own several Emerson knives and I have not had any issues with any of them. I understand the frustrations of those who have.

People out here are so upset with Emerson about certain things that they even want to argue and fight with anyone that says they own and enjoy Emerson knives. That's absurd! These constant attacks against those who like and support a certain product just because you don't like the owner of the company and have things against him are also absurd. Let's get back to what the real topic of interest------- Emerson knives. If you have a problem with your knife then I think everyone would like to see it and be aware of the problems that exist. Otherwise.........what are we accomplishing out here?

 

[InfidelShootist]

Dear Members,

There is a new post in "The Way I See It."

Best Regards,

Ernest R. Emerson

The Rabbi still doesn't get it but he's getting close.
The real threat is within our Government and the useful idiots that vote for them.
Radical Islam could be easily dealt with.Radical Marxists disguised as moderate Democrats can not.


"The ultimate destination of Political Correctness is totalitarianism"

 

[sns3guppy]

I'm confused by your inability to use the quote button.

You're confused, but because you have a comprehension problem. Not because I have a problem with quotes. My quotes were verbatim, and replied to, in turn. The quote you question, and to which I replied, was yours. Work on the comprehension and then check back. Your confusion will be less.

I have replied to you, you see, and now, I am replying to someone else:

Until the world sees it lived in the lives of those who claim to believe then most people just are not buying it.

Whether most people "buy it" or not is meaningless and irrelevant. If indeed what is believed is truth, then it does not require belief. If indeed it is not truth, then no amount of belief will change the fact. Therefore, the numbers which believe are irrelevant and meaningless. In any case, the numbers that believe or don't believe are entirely irrelevant to the question of radical proclaimers of Islam, or any other faction or sect.

As someone who spent many years studying Theology, Philosophy, and Christian Apologetics I understand your view point.

Perhaps, perhaps not. As someone who graduated the seminary, spent years in jungles and deserts as a missionary, and who has lived among many cultures, in many languages, and amid many religions, from Buddhist to Muslims to Christians to the aggressively agnostic, my personal convictions rest firmly on live-and-let-live. I am no "apologetic," and have always disliked the term, as it's connotation is improper and misplaced. Conversion, such as it is, is a personal function between the individual and whatever it is in which the individual believes, or seeks to believe.

Spiritual conversion is never a matter of of proof; it's not possible. It's always a matter of faith. Faith, contrary to popular belief, is a verb.

Then there is the good old close-minded skeptic. That is the camp most of us fit in.

Quantifying belief is no simple task; certainly not a this-camp-or-that-camp. Certainly one may have overlooked the obvious: those who are satisfied in their belief not because of blindness, not because of tradition, but because they have found what they seek. There's no crime in satisfaction with one's belief, nor is arriving at such a place represent ignorance, lack of intelligence, or shortsightedness.

All of this is leading far afield from the point of the thread, which is the sermon to which Emerson pointed.

 

[Kiah]

You're confused, but because you have a comprehension problem. Not because I have a problem with quotes. My quotes were verbatim, and replied to, in turn. The quote you question, and to which I replied, was yours. Work on the comprehension and then check back. Your confusion will be less.

I have replied to you, you see, and now, I am replying to someone else:

Just a friendly tip. When you quote someone, if you leave the "=username;0000000" part in there, it lessens the confusion and then we won't have to do any of that difficult comprehension in the first place. As long as we can figure out our names, we're cool.

As far as me not understanding whether you were replying to me ... I understood that the uncredited quote was mine. The problem was that your response to that quote had nothing to do with what I actually wrote. When I'm simply agreeing with the previous poster on the idolization, good or bad, of a single man, and the response is completely unrelated with a bit of biblical reference thrown in for some reason, I hope you can understand my confusion.

While I don't think anyone else took my post any other way, let me clarify that all I was saying was ...

Emerson makes nice knives. If you like the knives, ignore the baggage and pick one up.

I apologize if my post was muddled in some way that led you to read it completely different than I wrote it. I'll try to quantify better in the future so that we're not snapping at each other over things that weren't actually there. Later, bro.

 

[sns3guppy]

Just a friendly tip. When you quote someone, if you leave the "=username;0000000" part in there, it lessens the confusion and then we won't have to do any of that difficult comprehension in the first place. As long as we can figure out our names, we're cool.

If you don't know your name by now, I cannot help you. Nobody can.

Speak with your mother.

I couldn't care less about you; I'm not addressing you. I'm addressing the statement you made; the words you printed on the screen. Accordingly, whomever wrote those words has no significance. Only the words.

That you can't comprehend this means only that you need to do a little more reflecting and a little less posting. You're going to have to be "cool" with, or without your name in the bright lights. Can you do that? Whether you're "cool" or not, of course, means nothing to me.

Later, bro.

No doubt you know this, but I am not your brother.

 

[Kiah]

I couldn't care less about you; I'm not addressing you. I'm addressing the statement you made; the words you printed on the screen. Accordingly, whomever wrote those words has no significance. Only the words.

Okie doke. Still doesn't change the fact that you addressed my statement with a response that had absolutely nothing to do with it. It's kinda like you made up an argument in your head and responded to that instead. I don't know. I'm not sure why you're being so aggressively dense here, and it being 4 AM at this point, I don't really care. Maybe you actually think I wrote something else. Maybe you just like to argue with people on the internet. Whatever the case, my post and your response had zero to do with each other.

No doubt you know this, but I am not your brother.

I call everyone "bro" or "brother". That comes from a Christian upbringing and a church philosophy where everyone is your brother or sister. Even those you don't agree with or those that don't share your beliefs. While I'm not religious myself, I've always thought that part was one of the better aspects. I'm sorry that you don't feel the same. I'm sure you don't want my advice, but you can take it under consideration or ignore it outright. You seriously need to take a few deep breaths and consider that you might be coming off as a close minded, hateful man that's just venting pent up rage at some random dude you don't know for something that only you think he said. That may be entirely inaccurate, but that's how it's coming across on my end. hoopster and I are a good example of completely different belief systems, but I know when I call him bro or he calls me brother, it's not something to get mad about. Just my thoughts.

 

[sns3guppy]

You seriously need to take a few deep breaths and consider that you might be coming off as a close minded, hateful man that's just venting pent up rage at some random dude you don't know for something that only you think he said.

Advocating tolerance and open-mindedness comes off as close-minded and hateful to you?

There's that comprehension thing again. Work on it.

hoopster and I are a good example of completely different belief systems, but I know when I call him bro or he calls me brother, it's not something to get mad about.

That's just dandy for you and for "hoopster." I'm sure you'll make a great family. I, however, am not your brother.

 

[Lycosa]

I must say this; Spirituality is not about belief, it about knowing. I don't "believe" I love my wife, I "know" I love her. Do I believe in God, or whatever you want to call God, no. I "know" there is a God. How? I have experienced God.
We All can experience God if we chose to.
I'm done.

 

[sns3guppy]

The problem is that individuals from all walks of life, including numerous diametrically opposed religions, theologies, sects, churches, denominations, etc, all "know" with absolute certainty that their brand of belief is true and correct.

Not all can be true and correct when they disagree so vehemently. Even though many claim to "know."

I believe that those who do know should live up to that knowledge; one has such an obligation to live according to one's beliefs, and such a one cannot be faulted, except insofar as that person infringes upon the beliefs and practices of others.

Where such "knowing" breaks down occurs at times when religion, economy, political aims, and personal, national, or cultural agendas are pushed forth on the point of a sword.

By the very nature of Jihad, the "believer" is called to make war on the unbeliever; it's a commissioned duty from god; the believer "knows" this. This is really the aim of the sermon to which Emerson points. We don't see modern Christian theology demanding holy war or the extermination of non-believers. Christianity calls for fellowship, teaching, and spreading the word. Islam calls for conquering the non-believer. The essence of Islam is the subjecting of all things to God. Islam presumes that this is a natural fact; there is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed his prophet; all things are subject to Allah and this doesn't require belief or disbelief. The fundamental teaching of Islam in it's purest form is that all things are subject to God whether they know it or not. This principle governs the path of a bullet in flight, the orbit of the moon, and the results of a car crash.

If Islam stops there, then fine, so be it. Let the believer know it to be true, if they wish. Where the radical adherent takes Islam a step too far is enforcing that "knowledge" at the point of a sword. Rather than be content with all things being subject to their god, the radical extremists seek to subject all things to god by any means necessary. These do not speak for Islam, though they may profess to do so. Religion, indeed Islam, is nothing more than the sheet in the costume they wear; it has as much to do with true religion as paint has to do with the mechanical function of a car.

Knowing one's belief is good and well so long as it reinforces the spiritual conviction of the believer. Knowing one's belief in a way that drives one to impinge on the knowledge or belief of others is the true problem. Radical belief is always wrong, whether one professes to be a radical Christian or radical Muslim. Extremism is always a matter of interpretation, and most certainly not a following of the tenets or beliefs professed by the organization, religion, or structure of any given ideal. Extremism, by it's nature, is far afield of the mainstream belief; it's far afield of the ideals, the teachings, or the basis of a concept. It's the concept taken to an extreme. When an individual interprets or uses a belief system to accomplish personal or organizational aims (Al Qaeda,for example), the result is always dangerous and subversive. There is no place in society, neither ours nor any other, for such people; they are now, and will forever be, our enemies.

 

[Lycosa]

Jesus was not a Christian. Buddha was not a Buddhist. Etc...
There is God. One Knows God or one does Not. "Be still and know."
I'm now done.

 

[sns3guppy]

Therein lies that self-same controversy: while Jesus was not a Christian, those who follow Christ and who take upon themselves his name, are Christian. Christian meaning follower of Christ.

Whereas Christ is a title and not a name, and the title means far more than "leader," but rather "King" and alludes to the true meaning of the office of Christ; Jesus declared himself a living God. Moreover, he declared himself the God of the Earth, and of the Old Testament, when he declared that Before Abraham, I AM (--I am Yaweh, Jewish God of the old testament).

Whereas the Christ prayed and gave homage and respect to the one he declared as His Father, namely God the Father, known elsewhere as Elohim, to which one-god does one refer when one knows only one God?

Further, for adherents to the Christian view, the invocation of the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost invites a third party to the Trinity or Godhead; three personages acting independently (though none the less a source of sore controversy among sects) and yet holding the office, title, and position of God.

It's far too simplistic to see various religions or views, diametrically opposed in philosophy and function, and presume that all refer to the same diety, albeit with different names.

Islam, for example, does not recognize the diety of Christ, though Jesus proclaimed it himself. Christianity does not recognize the prophetic aspect of Mohammed, nor of Buddah. Buddah didn't know Christ, nor did Christ know Buddah, at least on paper on in the written record.

Some religions see a god of war, others a god of fear, others a god of love, others a god of hate. Some see a godly parent, and some see themselves as children of their god. Yet others see themselves as subjects of a god. Some see themselves as sons and daughters of god, who can grow up to be like him, others, most others in fact, see god as one who is far independent and an office to which one can never transcend.

Jesus proclaimed himself the son of god, but also the son of man; he proclaimed himself a necessary intercession and sacrifice for man's own falling out with god, and the way back from spiritual death. This position naturally puts him at odds with many other religions which either do not recognize any such requirement, or abhor the suggestion. Judiasm condemned him to death for violation of temporal laws which had no bearing or connection to revelation, and in particular to it's own view that his proclamation of divinity was blasphemous.

If you ask me personally, I would agree that there's but one God, but for so many to "know" that god in so many different ways defies reason. If indeed god exists in so many formats, so contrary to his own nature by conforming to so many different beliefs, then he could scarcely be a god...being far from perfect or supreme. God, then, must conform to some description (if indeed he exists); not everyone can be right, and those who know him, who are not right, must know something other than god. One is left then, to do the best one can within the strictures of one's own belief, insofar as one is able, without interfering with the rights, privileges, and beliefs of another.

 

[Lycosa]

Mike- You have been fed lies.
You are an intelligent person. You will find the Truth.
"Be still, look within."

 

[sns3guppy]

Fed lies? Which lie to I purport?

The lie which says each man must decide for himself?

The lie which says each man must live up to his own belief?

The facts which I previously outlined?

Cite the lie.