Fw: Beardon's device

From: "ed babinski" <ed.babinski@furman.edu>

Hi, Ed,

> Please keep me informed what you find out about the device. Sounds
> interesting, but how do you know that you are even "measuring" quantum
> fluxes without adding energy in order to measure them? I remember reading
> that you can't measure where an electron is without bouncing some sort of
> energy off the electron which in turn disturbs its state or position.
> Measuring or interacting with quantum states must be even trickier. I
> would suggest checking Beardon's device for any alternative power
> generating sources, hidden batteries, spinning magnets, heat.

Measurement occurs at the macro level. Large numbers of quantum interactions
occur with the atoms of the (in this case, magnetic) material involved. But
the overall, observable effect - electric power - can be measured with
ordinary DMMs, oscilloscopes, etc. The problem is to invoke Maxwellian
"demons" to leave a non-zero vector sum of power as the net effect.

> My reaction to your claim that there has never been a Christian president,
> and your reaction in turn, is unfortunate.

I agree. Let's restart on this.

> I assumed you would first tell
> me what a "Christian" was before asserting that no President has ever been
> one.

Fair question. I mean by "Christian" what was generally understood in the
early church and (more explicitly) by non-imperial, non-papal Christianity
during the succeeding centuries as what would be expected of Christ's
followers. The salient characteristic (for this topic) was their
unwillingness to entangle themselves in relationships or institutions that
compromised their political/spiritual loyalty to Christ. Like the
non-imperial Christians, I am willing to assume someone who professes to be
Christian is so unless they prove otherwise by crossing my line in the sand.
Where is that? When a person is actively participating in some of the
greatest evils on the planet, can opt to not do so, in doing so
significantly compromises their professed loyalty to Christ, then they
exceed my credibility as to their profession. I am well aware that where
other Christians draw the line may differ somewhat, but there is where mine
is, and it is essentially where many non-imperial traditions of Christians
historically drew their lines too.

> Neither does the Bible mention "presidents" or the "United States"
> at all, so I don't think you are finding "prophecies" of either that
> necessarily rule out any U.S. president ever having been a Christian.

Not in the predictive sense. The OT prophets were, at a basic level, not so
much future tellers but were prosecuting attorneys, pressing God's case
against Israel because of breach of their covenantal agreement. Generally
speaking, their case against some of Israel's kings could apply to today's
rulers of evil.

> Even Paul in the N.T. asserted that rulers were to be obeyed, and that
> they were put there by God.

Both Paul and Peter (1 Peter 2) address this and both qualify the nature of
these "higher authorities" in that they are obedient to God. Such is clearly
not the case in almost every present-day nation-state on earth. The
Enlightenment philosophes and British empiricists' views of humanist govt
have overtaken the world.

> So I don't see what could prevent any ruler
> from being a "Christian."

Ed, a decent answer to this cannot be given in a quick quip here. I have
covered this in detail in my email-able book (447 kbyte) which I would be
glad to email you or anyone interested. I am tempted to attach a summary
"laundry list" from it, but even that is long for this list discussion
format, and I have been impolite enough before on this listserver with
rather long responses.

Basically, to become president nowadays - and I mean how one actually does,
not the constitutional conditions - requires involvement with many of the
5000 or so people who really run the US, and these people mean to take over
the world. They have said so in various documents of various institutions
they control. (For example, see the UN's document on global governance.)
Many of them have no objections to pagan or even Luciferian worship, and in
many ways they do not submit themselves in obedience to the commands of
Christ. (My book, XLM, gives copious support.)

> But then, you haven't defined yet what a
> "Christian" is. How many people on the ASA list (excluding myself) do you
> think are "Christians?"

I exercise rather wide lattitude in accepting one's professon as valid
unless proven otherwise per the above criteria. That does not mean that I do
not think many professing Christians are undiscerning in some respects and
engaging in habitual sins, but they are unaware that they are doing so.
Before I studied the world-system in earnest, I was living in the same
spiritual Disneyland that I see many Am Xns living in, and I thought I was a
serious Christian. I was, but just didn't know much about my entanglements
with the world-system.

The hard part about bringing this up on the list (or my ASA Annual Meeting
talk about it in MA, or some previous coverage in the ASA newsletter) is
that once people are told that there is something important that they might
be missing, then they have a certain level of culpability before God
regarding it. And I am doing my duty before God, like Ezekiel's watchman,
but can, like Jeremiah, still get put in an intellectual (if not physical)
well over it.

Dennis Feucht
Received on Fri Oct 8 14:55:02 2004