Lost Data

[MMI]

Well ... what shall we all talk about now?

[denuseri]

Somthing political perhaps?

[DuncanONeil]

Somthing political perhaps?

Has there been a fundamental change in the way the country's business is conducted in Washington?

[denuseri]

Oh good question Duncan.

I know some would say yes.

Some would say that those in authority aparently no longer care what the "people" think anymore, especially since it seems like so many laws are on the verge of being passed right now despite the public clamore against them.

Others would say its a political ploy becuse just as many laws were passed that were unwanted in the previous administration.

The truth is I believe that there are varying degrees of this kind of thing present throughout all governments histories.

The real "change" to me at least isnt about lack of representation after election so much as the level of media involvment in the polorization proccess between our two main political parties.

[JimmyJump]

Has there been a fundamental change in the way the country's business is conducted in Washington?

Okay, so the server is located in the USA and a lot of people on the Library are from the USA, but please, don't refer to the USA as 'the country' because, hey, I'm from Belgium and a lot of other members here are not from 'the country' ;)

And my answer to your question is 'No', for the simple fact that the USA's business is not conducted out of Washington DC. Business is conducted through the Banks who operate from yonder plush seat at the Diner's Club or some such...


JJ

[DuncanONeil]

The media used to be called the forth estate. An arm of Government that was to keep the rest honest. It seems that now the media is now a adjunct to the political parties. With the vast majority of them in bed with the radical left!

As for that "fundamental change" in the way Washington conducts business. I have yet to see that happen. In fact the old Washington ploy of putting something unpalatable in as an amendment to something that must pass. With that there is the corollary used against the opposition is that if they defeat the bill they are against that necessary action, usually defense, or if the bill passes they call the opposition hypocrites in railing against that for which they vote. I see this still happening so I can only presume the :fundamental change" is in overall governance ideas for the nation. The President has already said the the national interests of the country are not important if another country disagrees.


Oh good question Duncan.

I know some would say yes.

Some would say that those in authority aparently no longer care what the "people" think anymore, especially since it seems like so many laws are on the verge of being passed right now despite the public clamore against them.

Others would say its a political ploy becuse just as many laws were passed that were unwanted in the previous administration.

The truth is I believe that there are varying degrees of this kind of thing present throughout all governments histories.

The real "change" to me at least isnt about lack of representation after election so much as the level of media involvment in the polorization proccess between our two main political parties.

[fetishdj]

Everyone knows that there is only one country in the world, the one country that rules most of it... the United Kingdom. Ok, we've let some of you rule yourselves for a little while, but everyone knows that is only temporary... We'll welcome you back into the Empire when you are well and truly ready :)

Seriously, I'm actually pleased to have a break from serious political debate for a short while.

[DuncanONeil]

There was no hubris in saying "the country" as I at the same time referred to the seat of power, ie Washington DC. Therefore there should be no confusion.

As for the NWO, well the old saw about "money talks" does have some weight. Seeing as how people are spending tens of millions of dollars for a four year contract job that pays $400,000. Unless you want to count the pension, $191,300. That increases each time there is a federal wage increase. these costs do not even consider the cost of the body guards and and offices and staff. Life expectancy and no increase means nearly $7 million life time income.


Okay, so the server is located in the USA and a lot of people on the Library are from the USA, but please, don't refer to the USA as 'the country' because, hey, I'm from Belgium and a lot of other members here are not from 'the country' ;)

And my answer to your question is 'No', for the simple fact that the USA's business is not conducted out of Washington DC. Business is conducted through the Banks who operate from yonder plush seat at the Diner's Club or some such...


JJ

[DuncanONeil]

It appears the Harry Reid is determined to fill all of our stockings this year!!

It is unfortunate though that he plans on doing that with lumps of coal, Copenhagen not withstanding!

[denuseri]

Speaking of the lack of discussion about non Americian (Primaraly USA) dominated political discussion lets not forget the European, not to mention all other world political organizations.

What are the main party Divisions out there? How and where do they fit into things in general etc etc.

Is the USA the new Rome?

[MMI]

Everyone knows that there is only one country in the world, the one country that rules most of it... the United Kingdom. Ok, we've let some of you rule yourselves for a little while, but everyone knows that is only temporary... We'll welcome you back into the Empire when you are well and truly ready :)

Seriously, I'm actually pleased to have a break from serious political debate for a short while.

Speaking as a jingoistic Colonel Blimp, you don't know how glad I am that someone else said that and not me!

However, we can only let the British bits back into the Empire - and perhaps the areas we reserved for the Indians. The rest would have to go back to France, Spain, Russia and Holland ... and Hawaii would be on its own.

[fetishdj]

Meh, by divine right we still own parts of France... or would if Mary I hadn't been stupid enough to lose Calais :)

Not sure anyone wants a debate on European poilitics... there is one advantage to a 2 party system and that is it is easy to understand. Most European countries now have many, many parties and the way they interact within Europe is complicated. The parties that have power in their individual countries are not necessarily the ones that have power in Europe. For example, the Green party in Britain rarely stands for general election (they have one or two seats in parliament which they sometimes stand for and I am not aware of them winning anywhere) but in the European elections they often get several seats. Of course, they can do more for the environment in Europe (because Europe has more power over industrial standards) than they could in the UK parliament, even if they actually performed the miracle of getting a majority in parliament and therefore determining the government...

Of course, the main problem is that many of the smaller parties are too small to effectively create a government (and they are mainly single issue parties) so we are, in effect, limited still to the 2 and a half party system we have had for years...

[DuncanONeil]

What is with the fracas involving that Italian Minister?


Speaking of the lack of discussion about non Americian (Primaraly USA) dominated political discussion lets not forget the European, not to mention all other world political organizations.

What are the main party Divisions out there? How and where do they fit into things in general etc etc.

Is the USA the new Rome?

[DuncanONeil]

Since you mention the "Greens". If the Greens got what they truly wanted the world population would likely be, at best, in the millions. Rather than where it is now. Also when the population was in that neighborhood it took three days to get from the east coast of this state to the State Capital, a distance of some 70 miles!


Meh, by divine right we still own parts of France... or would if Mary I hadn't been stupid enough to lose Calais :)

Not sure anyone wants a debate on European poilitics... there is one advantage to a 2 party system and that is it is easy to understand. Most European countries now have many, many parties and the way they interact within Europe is complicated. The parties that have power in their individual countries are not necessarily the ones that have power in Europe. For example, the Green party in Britain rarely stands for general election (they have one or two seats in parliament which they sometimes stand for and I am not aware of them winning anywhere) but in the European elections they often get several seats. Of course, they can do more for the environment in Europe (because Europe has more power over industrial standards) than they could in the UK parliament, even if they actually performed the miracle of getting a majority in parliament and therefore determining the government...

Of course, the main problem is that many of the smaller parties are too small to effectively create a government (and they are mainly single issue parties) so we are, in effect, limited still to the 2 and a half party system we have had for years...

[fetishdj]

I agree (odd, we agree on something :) )the greens are in no way suited for higher levels of power. Put them in charge of a country and they would have trouble. This is why they are better off in Brussels deciding things about emissions and so on.

By Italian Minister, I assume you mean Berlisconi (who is actually the president) who got attacked at a rally the other day? Or something else which I missed due to not seeing the news much today?

[IAN 2411]

Speaking of the lack of discussion about non Americian (Primaraly USA) dominated political discussion lets not forget the European, not to mention all other world political organizations.

What are the main party Divisions out there? How and where do they fit into things in general etc etc.

Is the USA the new Rome?

denuseri, with all due respect but i am not sure what you mean by [quote= Is the USA the new Rome?
Do you mean spiritually or Empire building, or political?

Well this is my Rant.
[History] The British Empire was bigger than the Roman Empire, but just like the Romans we gave some countries back and lost other countries. We still have however Countries that still have close relations with us and still respect our Queen. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and that is to name but a few, so if that is what you mean, forget it. Empires are dead but Europe is still trying to take any country that it opposes by stealth without using an army, it expects everyone else to fight its battles. I expect the English and Americans to go and bail them out at some stage in the near future, it will probably be after the terrorists they refuse to fight in Afghanistan, rip their countries to bits. Europe is so much in fear of England that they made Berlusconi their King, and told us we can keep Blair and Gordon Brown as our dictator’s, and as a dictator Brown is doing Quite well, I believe he has asked for a transfer to North Korea next year as a replacement for the one they have.
Now spiritually you can forget that one,
The Roman Catholic Church has one billion members including the Christian faith, and that is only one sixth of the world population. They are probably out-numbered by atheists; some god fearing people have moved on and believe in science and evolution. No one country leads the way in politics or by example, they are too busy watching their own backs. The truth of the matter is, the British are living and dying alongside the Americans in the name of freedom. The Europeans are quite happy to see the British and Americans do this as long as Brown lets them keep chipping away at our Sovereign Nation, and the Americans give them a nuclear shield in Europe. I have no time for Europe, and neither have 65% of the United Kingdom, [Fact]. The divisions are not in the countries but between the countries, and the divisions are made by politics.

Rgards Ian

[denuseri]

Well then since we wish to equate Brittian with Rome, than perhaps the USA is the new Constantinople?

We seem to be the dominant topic of allmost every political discussion on these forums. But that is spurious I am sure since this is primarally an english speaking site.

Spiritually? I fail to see where that came from? Whats Catholisim got to do with it? I thought GB went with its own church anyways....If one thinks, that having freedom of religion inheriently gives liscense to such I suppose so then, but I do believe that religion isnt what I am implying. (at least out side of a religious position as propogators of a Neo-Crusades) At least not yet, The Romans and classical weastern society did have all sorts of religious freedom compared to their counterparts, at least until the adoption of christianity (in that the USA is still very much "republicanized" in the roman sence as opposed to imperial). Though I do suppose if one means the USA acts as the moral compass for religious freedom and tolerance...shurgs idk

Politically however:

We are called upon to be the worlds defender and police force , the world economy is dependent upon our markets in a way, sometimes quite directly, there is no other country in the world that dictates poliecy to us, it is allways the other way around (at least since we took the riegns from Brittan during WW2). Etc etc, the list goes on.... all things Rome and then later Constantinople once did in thier day and age.

All besides the point, I shall restate the question more clearly since there is obvious confussion.

Has the USA become too imperial with the rest of the world?

If we truely wish to be a "New Rome" than do we also not have the same implied nessesity of establishing wise dominion, so as to at least avoid the pitfalls of complancency that lead to Romes fall? (Or any Empire/nation etc)

[MMI]

I have no time for Europe, and neither have 65% of the United Kingdom, [Fact].

You could be right, but not for the reasons you suggest, and I think you do not speak for most Brits. In fact, most Brits want their boys out of Afghanistan and wish they'd never gone in there at all ... We of all nations must know how futile it is to try to subdue the Afghans.

But we are there, along with America and our European allies: France, Poland, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Austria,
Netherlands, Romania, Denmark, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Albania, Georgia, Portugal, Ukraine, Ireland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Bulgaria, Belgium, Croatia, Slovakia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, and Luxembourg. As well as, of couse, many non-European nations.

We have more people out there than they do? So what? All that proves is that we are more belligerent than they are - something that never needed proving. But isn't it good to see how our rebellious offspring follows in our footsteps so closely?


Constantinople? Very good, den! Although it fell before Rome did, and I believe the adherents of the Western Church sacked that city long before the Turks got there. I'm not sure how the parallels run here, but I'd hate either Europe or USA to turn against the other in the pretence of rescuing it.

As far as I can see, America's imperialism is represented by a commercial empire. Politically, the USA seems to be introverted, xenophobic and wholly self-interested. The contrast is irreconcilable! Politically it has few "overseas territories" (Newspeak for "colonies"), but its business interests reach into every country in the world.

Inevitably, USA will diminish and fall, just like every other imperial power before it, and new ones - China, India, Russia (yes, you read that right) and Brazil, will take over ... for a while. Meanwhile, we would all be grateful for as much benign wisdom as the US is able to show the world, starting with Copenhagen.

[IAN 2411]

I don’t know what country you come from MMI, but if it is GB then you had better get up to speed. Of a pole by [you gov] a few months ago there was a 65% of the British population wishing to leave the European community all together. Europeans are greedy and manipulative, they have forced their laws on the British population through back door dealings, and there is not an ounce of decency in the European parliament. As for these other countries that are backing the Brits and The Americans in Afghanistan, where the fuck are they. Spain; I think had a train blown up and they pulled half their troops out for fear of reprisals, now that says it all. The others that you mention are just a token force, there but not seen, probably still in the dug outs. I am not stupid so don’t take me for a fool, the Afghan’s have been invaded by the British Twice, the Russians once, they are a nation of fighters that have been fighting between tribes since time began. And when this force of two real nations UK and USA leave they will still be fighting.

I at no time inferred that the Brits loved the war, and of course they don’t, and neither do they like their loved ones being sent home in body bags. The truth is, until Afghanistan is free of alkida; there will always be BRIT/AMERICAN forces there. As for the troops not wanting to be there or their families saying the same, I would like to point out that I was in the UK special forces, and spent over two years getting shot at, nail bombed and Molotov cocktailed by the very same people we were protecting in Northern Ireland. My family and I and all my comrades never wanted to be there either, so please don’t belly ache to me about useless battles, and how we should not be there.

When it comes to kicking ass the Europeans are never there, the three main words in their dictionary is Capitulate, surrender, and retreat. If you look at my avatar you will see United Kingdom, and it means that I am proud of where I come from.

Regards Ian

[steelish]

Europeans are greedy and manipulative, they have forced their laws on the British population through back door dealings, and there is not an ounce of decency in the European parliament.

Wow, sounds familiar. Methinks it is EXACTLY what we're going through right now with the American government!

[MMI]

I don’t know what country you come from MMI, but if it is GB then you had better get up to speed. Of a pole by [you gov] a few months ago there was a 65% of the British population wishing to leave the European community all together. Europeans are greedy and manipulative, they have forced their laws on the British population through back door dealings, and there is not an ounce of decency in the European parliament. As for these other countries that are backing the Brits and The Americans in Afghanistan, where the fuck are they. Spain; I think had a train blown up and they pulled half their troops out for fear of reprisals, now that says it all. The others that you mention are just a token force, there but not seen, probably still in the dug outs. I am not stupid so don’t take me for a fool, the Afghan’s have been invaded by the British Twice, the Russians once, they are a nation of fighters that have been fighting between tribes since time began. And when this force of two real nations UK and USA leave they will still be fighting.

I at no time inferred that the Brits loved the war, and of course they don’t, and neither do they like their loved ones being sent home in body bags. The truth is, until Afghanistan is free of alkida; there will always be BRIT/AMERICAN forces there. As for the troops not wanting to be there or their families saying the same, I would like to point out that I was in the UK special forces, and spent over two years getting shot at, nail bombed and Molotov cocktailed by the very same people we were protecting in Northern Ireland. My family and I and all my comrades never wanted to be there either, so please don’t belly ache to me about useless battles, and how we should not be there.

When it comes to kicking ass the Europeans are never there, the three main words in their dictionary is Capitulate, surrender, and retreat. If you look at my avatar you will see United Kingdom, and it means that I am proud of where I come from.

Regards Ian

I'm perectly happy to accept your assurance that you're neither stupid nor a fool. I didn't know I'd treated you as one, but if you feel I have ... well, let's leave it there, shall we?

Nor did I challenge your assertion that 65% of Brits want to leave Europe, I simply pointed out that you did not speak for them all, because many want to leave for reasons that are not bigoted, racist or xenophobic, but for reasons based on economic or political principles. So rather than telling me to get up to speed, I suggest you slow down enough to build up the words in your mind as your finger passes over the letters, and take a moment to understand them.

As for NI, that has nothing to do with what we were talking about, so don't accuse ME of bellyaching: someone else is doing that! However, as a member of the armed forces, it would be intersting to hear your views as to why the people whom the British Army went into Ulster to protect - the Catholic minority - turned against them so violently within months. What did the Army do so wrong?

30 years of occupation, and then withdrawn without achieving peace, in order to give peace a chance. Do I now hear cries of Tiocfaidh ár lá coming accross the Irish Sea?

Finally, you have no monopoly over Britannia: she represents all of England (not the United Kingdom, but England), and "all of England" includes people with different attitudes from yours. I could use her as my avater too. In fact, I quite fancy being blown by an Italian goddess.

[IAN 2411]

Your question about NI is a very good one and i wish to hell i could answer it, but the truth is the trouble started with King Billy. The prods were the occupying loyalist force, and the Catholic Minority saw the british army as part and parcel of the problem. It was every soldiers nightmare, because in parts of Belfast we could not even trust the prods. I personly hated the place because everyone was your freind, and everyone was your enemy. I had two tours over there and i wouldn't go back there for a free holiday.

You are correct, and i was a little fast with that reply, i know it is no excuse but i was a little tired. There are as you say a lot of soldiers from Europe in Afghanistan but most are not at the sharp end, and it is not in their contract to be at the sharp end. I know that sounds daft but i read that on the WWW dictionary, Afghanistan 2002-today. Then there is of course poor old Britania, well the Euro MPs have pulled so many plugs on GB that she is sinking into the sea and at a very fast rate. Europe is not about politics it is i think all about power. I have to admit that at the moment that the USA sneezes and the rest of the world catches cold, but Europe want a United States of Europe to match America, but if it ever happens it will be minus the UK, the people would not alow it.

[denuseri]

Nice exchange you two, lol I looved it!

Oh btw, "classically" speaking FYI:

Fall of Rome...476 AD

Fall of Constantinople...1453 AD

[MMI]

I stand corrected, den. The City of Rome fell when you said it did.

What I was alluding to, however, was the Frankish sacking of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade, and by "Rome" I really meant the Western Church. My point was that it would be a disaster if two supposed allies - Europe and the USA - turned against each other like Constantinople and the Western Crusaders did.

[IAN 2411]

Something you ought to think of MMI is the fact that Europe is already trying to be a power against the USA. It is because of their own stupid laws that no Country in Europ can deal direct with America, and they hate it because the UK and America have this special reationship and alience with each other. Americas foothold into Europe is Via the UK, and at the moment it goes both ways. Europe are at bitter battles with the UK about us dealing openly with Australia, New Zealand, Canada, parts of Africa, the Falklands and several other countries that are in our Comanwealth., but there is Damn all they can do about it. The euro parliment keep coming back and telling the UK that it is an unfair advantage, but because it is written in our own constution, there is damn all they can do with it. Start messing with our Comanwealth countries, and Europe will have their ass kicked, and big time by the British people. Europe made their own shacles in their bid to be the greedy, now they have to live with them, and tough shit. I might be wrong, so i say this as i look over my shoulder, to see if [denuseri] is standing ready to pounce with her encyclopedia mind. Britain give Europe something like £45 million every week, more than 80% of the other countries give, and we have to beg to get a handout from them. We are paying so that an Italian dairy farmer can live like the rest of the farmers in the UK, it is madness on a big scale, but i have a feeling that things will change after the elections next year when we get rid of Dictator Brown and the rest of his idiots. Bloody hell he is a scotsman for Gods sake, he should be up in Scotland in their own parliment, not down here messing the English about. I can feel denu about so i will say into the nothingness casualy, just as if i was talking to myself, i wonder when the British Empire started to fall to pieces.

Regards ian

[MMI]

I have no problem with the idea of a federal Europe. Remember the USA is a federation of states, and it has done very nicely as a result. Canada and Australia, too. So why resist the idea in Europe?

It is no more practical now for Britain to leave the EU than it would be for Texas to leave the USA, and if it came to a choice between the EU and the Commonwealth, it is obvious which way the country would have to go ... but here's a thought ... why not offer special relationships with the EU to all Commonwealth nations - or even membership!

After all, the EU is really only a rich man's club, and to admit third world nations (as well as Canada, Australia, and the rest of the wealthier Commonwealth countries - assuming they wanted to) would actually do something constructive to tackle world poverty, as well as creating a counterbalance to USA and China.

[denuseri]

Hey I am not an encyclopedia I am a real live girl! lol

I just happen to be a history student is all.

Whats ironic is many of the EU's growing pains are things the USA has allready went through a long time ago. Of course it took a Civil War before we finally solidified true Federal control over the individual states. Lets hope Eruope avoids that one!

As for Europe and Great Brittan being allied with the USA, lets face it people, after litterally saving europe twice (once in WW2 and once in the subsequent cold war against the Soviets after)(you all sure dont have to speak german or russian now do ya?) a certian degree of cooporation is natural for continued economic posterity as well as security. Furthermore its perfectly natural that our relationship is going to be closer with the one parent country that wasnt on the other side or remained neutral and still kept its sovernity as an ally from the get go.

Its really no different than our relationships with Taiwan and Japan VS the rest of Asia in some ways, but seriously, does anyone think the USA will ever stand against Brittan over another country so long as Brittan stands with us?

[DuncanONeil]

Man got hit in the face with a model of some statue or building!


I agree (odd, we agree on something :) )the greens are in no way suited for higher levels of power. Put them in charge of a country and they would have trouble. This is why they are better off in Brussels deciding things about emissions and so on.

By Italian Minister, I assume you mean Berlisconi (who is actually the president) who got attacked at a rally the other day? Or something else which I missed due to not seeing the news much today?

[DuncanONeil]

"(S)ome god fearing people have moved on and believe in science and evolution." Excuse me? One can not believe is science and evolution and be God fearing? Methinks you need to refresh your history of scientific advancement. The majority of which came either from the church, men of faith, or sponsored by the church!

Your data on the numbers of RCs is partly correct. There are one billion RCs, which is over one-half of all christians. Therefore the RCs by themselves are as numerous as the Chinese. Then if one considers adding The Eastern Orthodox, Catholics become 1.3 billion(still about 1/6). At about 17% this dwarfs the worlds number of atheists, who approximate 2.3%



The Roman Catholic Church has one billion members including the Christian faith, and that is only one sixth of the world population. They are probably out-numbered by atheists; some god fearing people have moved on and believe in science and evolution. No one country leads the way in politics or by example, they are too busy watching their own backs. The truth of the matter is, the British are living and dying alongside the Americans in the name of freedom. The Europeans are quite happy to see the British and Americans do this as long as Brown lets them keep chipping away at our Sovereign Nation, and the Americans give them a nuclear shield in Europe. I have no time for Europe, and neither have 65% of the United Kingdom, [Fact]. The divisions are not in the countries but between the countries, and the divisions are made by politics.

Rgards Ian

[skp2bear]

Just to set the record straight. Unlike the rest of the states, with the possible exception of Hawaii under tribal rule, Texas was an independant free-standing republic complete with foreign ambassadors before joining the United States. Thus our entry pact is different making it much easier return to our status as a free-standing republic. Had it not been for the Battle of San Jacinto fought right here in Harris County, here we won
our own independence from Mexico the United States would be smaller by 1/3.

[Thorne]

Just to set the record straight. Unlike the rest of the states, with the possible exception of Hawaii under tribal rule, Texas was an independant free-standing republic complete with foreign ambassadors before joining the United States. Thus our entry pact is different making it much easier return to our status as a free-standing republic. Had it not been for the Battle of San Jacinto fought right here in Harris County, here we won
our own independence from Mexico the United States would be smaller by 1/3.
While it's true that Texas may have the legal right to secede, it's doubtful they would have the economic stability to survive such an act. Especially when the religious nuts who are trying to destroy the Texas Board of Education get the power to push the state back into the dark ages. Without the power of the US Constitution to keep them in check I have no doubt they would manage to virtually destroy the education system in Texas within one year of secession.

And good riddance to 'em!

[IAN 2411]

"(S)ome god fearing people have moved on and believe in science and evolution." Excuse me? One can not believe is science and evolution and be God fearing? Methinks you need to refresh your history of scientific advancement. The majority of which came either from the church, men of faith, or sponsored by the church!

Your data on the numbers of RCs is partly correct. There are one billion RCs, which is over one-half of all christians. Therefore the RCs by themselves are as numerous as the Chinese. Then if one considers adding The Eastern Orthodox, Catholics become 1.3 billion(still about 1/6). At about 17% this dwarfs the worlds number of atheists, who approximate 2.3%

Ok lets get this right If you were god fearing and you have moved on, it means you no longer believe in god but science and evolution, that was the point i was making and while we are about scoring points. My data apart from the atheists is perfectly correct, i failed to mention that atheists are part of the Nontheist group, and they number 11%, meaning still that you are correct that the Catholic church out number them. I am but a mear mortal and lible to make mistakes.

Wicipedia: -

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church. With more than a billion members, over half of all Christians[note 2] and more than one-sixth of the world's population, the Catholic Church is a communion of the Western, or (Latin Rite) Church, and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008. The Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality, and governance is the Pope,[15] currently Pope Benedict XVI, who holds supreme authority in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head.[16][17][18] The Catholic community is made up of an ordained ministry and the laity; members of either group may belong to organized religious communities.[19]

The men of faith are self proclaimed, they do it because it is their firm belief, then they push their philosaphy down our throats. Get real it is just a big club.

Lighten up, you are picking weak holes.

Regards ian

[skp2bear]

I strongly disagree with you Thorne. Even the army-navy game has a prayer before it. also the doctrine of evolution has been proven to be fals in many instances. presenting both views as equals should be taught as both are correct. The theory of evolutions says we all came from a single cell. That does not contradict religious view except for the few literalists who forget that three different creation stories are told in the first three chapters of Genesis. What the authors are trying to say is that a supreme being started everything. How else can you explain where that first cell came from or even the right elements and conditions necessary to produce it

[DuncanONeil]

I would have to say no. I am sure some disagree but the US has not "imposed" its own way of being as Rome did!




Has the USA become too imperial with the rest of the world?

If we truely wish to be a "New Rome" than do we also not have the same implied nessesity of establishing wise dominion, so as to at least avoid the pitfalls of complancency that lead to Romes fall? (Or any Empire/nation etc)

[DuncanONeil]

Copenhagen is a joke. As for commercial empires. No country on the planet can survive on its own resources anymore! Therefore a world market is in the interests of the world. As it stands our greatest export is capital goods and greatest import is industrial supplies!


You could be right, but not for the reasons you suggest, and I think you do not speak for most Brits. In fact, most Brits want their boys out of Afghanistan and wish they'd never gone in there at all ... We of all nations must know how futile it is to try to subdue the Afghans.

But we are there, along with America and our European allies: France, Poland, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Lithuania, Finland, Sweden, Iceland, Austria,
Netherlands, Romania, Denmark, Czech Republic, Hungary, Macedonia, Albania, Georgia, Portugal, Ukraine, Ireland, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Italy, Turkey, Bulgaria, Belgium, Croatia, Slovakia, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Estonia, Greece, and Luxembourg. As well as, of couse, many non-European nations.

We have more people out there than they do? So what? All that proves is that we are more belligerent than they are - something that never needed proving. But isn't it good to see how our rebellious offspring follows in our footsteps so closely?


Constantinople? Very good, den! Although it fell before Rome did, and I believe the adherents of the Western Church sacked that city long before the Turks got there. I'm not sure how the parallels run here, but I'd hate either Europe or USA to turn against the other in the pretence of rescuing it.

As far as I can see, America's imperialism is represented by a commercial empire. Politically, the USA seems to be introverted, xenophobic and wholly self-interested. The contrast is irreconcilable! Politically it has few "overseas territories" (Newspeak for "colonies"), but its business interests reach into every country in the world.

Inevitably, USA will diminish and fall, just like every other imperial power before it, and new ones - China, India, Russia (yes, you read that right) and Brazil, will take over ... for a while. Meanwhile, we would all be grateful for as much benign wisdom as the US is able to show the world, starting with Copenhagen.

[DuncanONeil]

But don't you remember that the current Speaker promised us the "most ethical Congress ever" when she took up the gavel. And the President promised an end to business as usual in Washington and his administration would be the most transparent ever?

I guess that is why the bills presented are over 2000 pages and multiple versions, so they can be transparent. And that is the same reason the bills are crafted out of the view of the public (and the minority as well). Then there all the time limits, usually less time than it would take to read the bill, for passage.


Wow, sounds familiar. Methinks it is EXACTLY what we're going through right now with the American government!

[DuncanONeil]

In reality, short of giving everyone the exact same amount of money, it is impossible to eliminate poverty.


I have no problem with the idea of a federal Europe. Remember the USA is a federation of states, and it has done very nicely as a result. Canada and Australia, too. So why resist the idea in Europe?

It is no more practical now for Britain to leave the EU than it would be for Texas to leave the USA, and if it came to a choice between the EU and the Commonwealth, it is obvious which way the country would have to go ... but here's a thought ... why not offer special relationships with the EU to all Commonwealth nations - or even membership!

After all, the EU is really only a rich man's club, and to admit third world nations (as well as Canada, Australia, and the rest of the wealthier Commonwealth countries - assuming they wanted to) would actually do something constructive to tackle world poverty, as well as creating a counterbalance to USA and China.

[DuncanONeil]

Hey I am not an encyclopedia I am a real live girl! lol

I just happen to be a history student is all.

Whats ironic is many of the EU's growing pains are things the USA has allready went through a long time ago. Of course it took a Civil War before we finally solidified true Federal control over the individual states. Lets hope Eruope avoids that one!

Actually the Federal Government has no right to exercise control over the States. The powers of the Feds is strictly limited, something the Feds have forgotten, or choose to ignore. All other powers remain in the perview of the States.


As for Europe and Great Brittan being allied with the USA, lets face it people, after litterally saving europe twice (once in WW2 and once in the subsequent cold war against the Soviets after)(you all sure dont have to speak german or russian now do ya?) a certian degree of cooporation is natural for continued economic posterity as well as security. Furthermore its perfectly natural that our relationship is going to be closer with the one parent country that wasnt on the other side or remained neutral and still kept its sovernity as an ally from the get go.

Having included the Cold War then that count would have to be three. You forgot to include WW1


Its really no different than our relationships with Taiwan and Japan VS the rest of Asia in some ways, but seriously, does anyone think the USA will ever stand against Brittan over another country so long as Brittan stands with us?

[DuncanONeil]

So was California! And the right retained by Texas is the right to subdivide into, I believe, a total of five smaller states.


Just to set the record straight. Unlike the rest of the states, with the possible exception of Hawaii under tribal rule, Texas was an independant free-standing republic complete with foreign ambassadors before joining the United States. Thus our entry pact is different making it much easier return to our status as a free-standing republic. Had it not been for the Battle of San Jacinto fought right here in Harris County, here we won
our own independence from Mexico the United States would be smaller by 1/3.

[DuncanONeil]

You mean the US educational system has not yet been destroyed?


While it's true that Texas may have the legal right to secede, it's doubtful they would have the economic stability to survive such an act. Especially when the religious nuts who are trying to destroy the Texas Board of Education get the power to push the state back into the dark ages. Without the power of the US Constitution to keep them in check I have no doubt they would manage to virtually destroy the education system in Texas within one year of secession.

And good riddance to 'em!

[DuncanONeil]

Not picking weak holes. Your data on the number of Catholics and Christians is backwards. I suggest you read that Wiki section again. The RCs are over one billion and that represents more than half of all Christians. Therefore the total number of Christians is nearer two billion, or one-third of the population!
And as for the "big club" I am of the position that doing so is not christian.


Ok lets get this right If you were god fearing and you have moved on, it means you no longer believe in god but science and evolution, that was the point i was making and while we are about scoring points. My data apart from the atheists is perfectly correct, i failed to mention that atheists are part of the Nontheist group, and they number 11%, meaning still that you are correct that the Catholic church out number them. I am but a mear mortal and lible to make mistakes.

Wicipedia: -

The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church,[note 1] is the world's largest Christian church. With more than a billion members, over half of all Christians[note 2] and more than one-sixth of the world's population, the Catholic Church is a communion of the Western, or (Latin Rite) Church, and 22 autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches (called particular churches), comprising a total of 2,795 dioceses in 2008. The Church's highest earthly authority in matters of faith, morality, and governance is the Pope,[15] currently Pope Benedict XVI, who holds supreme authority in concert with the College of Bishops, of which he is the head.[16][17][18] The Catholic community is made up of an ordained ministry and the laity; members of either group may belong to organized religious communities.[19]

The men of faith are self proclaimed, they do it because it is their firm belief, then they push their philosaphy down our throats. Get real it is just a big club.

Lighten up, you are picking weak holes.

Regards ian

[Thorne]

the doctrine of evolution has been proven to be fals in many instances.
That's misleading. Evolution is a fact. We know it happens.We see it all around us. There is no debate among mainstream scientists about this. The MECHANISMS of evolution are still being debated. Some have shown to be weak, others grow stronger. But these are simply our attempts at understanding a fact, just like gravity.

presenting both views as equals should be taught as both are correct.
If you mean evolution and creationism, then no, they are not both correct. They are mutually exclusive.


What the authors are trying to say is that a supreme being started everything.
If you want to believe that a supernatural being started it all by creating the universe and allowing life to evolve, that's all well and good, but you have to have evidence before you can present it as science. Otherwise it's faith, and has no place in the science classroom.


How else can you explain where that first cell came from or even the right elements and conditions necessary to produce it
Science has shown that living cells can be produced by chemical reactions under the proper conditions. It has been shown that the entire universe can be explained, logically and consistently, without benefit of supernatural intervention, from approximately one millisecond (maybe less) after the Big Bang.

What we cannot explain (yet) is what happened before and at the precise moment of the Big Bang. What caused it? Where did the matter come from? Many other questions. If you wish to postulate a god of some kind initiating it, that's fine. There's no one to say you are wrong. But without evidence, you cannot claim you are right. You can only have faith.

[DuncanONeil]

I take exception to the statement that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive!!!!

As to that millisecond after the bang, That still leaves an awful lot of time unaccounted for.


That's misleading. Evolution is a fact. We know it happens.We see it all around us. There is no debate among mainstream scientists about this. The MECHANISMS of evolution are still being debated. Some have shown to be weak, others grow stronger. But these are simply our attempts at understanding a fact, just like gravity.

If you mean evolution and creationism, then no, they are not both correct. They are mutually exclusive.


If you want to believe that a supernatural being started it all by creating the universe and allowing life to evolve, that's all well and good, but you have to have evidence before you can present it as science. Otherwise it's faith, and has no place in the science classroom.


Science has shown that living cells can be produced by chemical reactions under the proper conditions. It has been shown that the entire universe can be explained, logically and consistently, without benefit of supernatural intervention, from approximately one millisecond (maybe less) after the Big Bang.

What we cannot explain (yet) is what happened before and at the precise moment of the Big Bang. What caused it? Where did the matter come from? Many other questions. If you wish to postulate a god of some kind initiating it, that's fine. There's no one to say you are wrong. But without evidence, you cannot claim you are right. You can only have faith.

[denuseri]

I did not forget WW1 Duncan, any historian will tell you its way way to arguable as to weather our late involvment actually saved Eroupe, in the same way at all as WW2. In WW1 we came over a day late and a dollar short with a shovel to "help", in WW2 we came over with a bulldozer.

Any student of the Federalist Papers (which btw is the handbook for constitutional interpetation for the high court) can tell you that the Federal Governemnet must and will hold dominion over that of the states if it wished for the country as a whole to survive. With Homeland Security in full swing, that dominions grip just got a little tighter.

Go ask the Civil War buffs about "State's Rights" lol.

[Thorne]

I take exception to the statement that evolution and creation are mutually exclusive!!!!
As to that millisecond after the bang, That still leaves an awful lot of time unaccounted for.
I said creationism, not creation, but your point is noted. I should have said "Biblical" Creation, or Genesis. It's quite possible that some kind of being began creation in that millisecond of time. As soon as you provide the evidence for it I'll be happy to adjust my belief system.

Just don't expect me to kneel down and sing his or her or its praises.

[MMI]

Deleted by author

[MMI]

Deleted by author

OK, as there seems to be a pause for thought in this thread, I am posting this message as an aside and for information's sake (not as a corrective). In addition to Texas and Hawaii, California, Vermont and New Hampshire have also been independent nations, and it is now inconceivable that any of them would be allowed to leave the Union, not even to join Canada, regardless of what the treaties by which they joined originally said.

[denuseri]

Precisely my point MMI.

So is that in Europes future?

Or are we looking at one big government for all?

[Thorne]

Posted by mistake.

[MMI]

It could quite possibly be the outcome of a federal Europe.

Currently there is a procedure for leaving the EU, but it's never been used (except by colonies upon gaining independence, such as Greenland). Upon federation, that procedure will become as unlikely to be used as Texas is to leave USA.

[DuncanONeil]

I said creationism, not creation, but your point is noted. I should have said "Biblical" Creation, or Genesis. It's quite possible that some kind of being began creation in that millisecond of time. As soon as you provide the evidence for it I'll be happy to adjust my belief system.

Just don't expect me to kneel down and sing his or her or its praises.


I still see no difference in the terms. Nor do I see any dicotomy in believing in both. For me the fact that you admit a possibility is actually sufficient.
Should there be a creator, even considering the Bible, we would have no concept of what a day constitutes for said being. Nor when they were satisfied with their work.

[DuncanONeil]

OK, as there seems to be a pause for thought in this thread, I am posting this message as an aside and for information's sake (not as a corrective). In addition to Texas and Hawaii, California, Vermont and New Hampshire have also been independent nations, and it is now inconceivable that any of them would be allowed to leave the Union, not even to join Canada, regardless of what the treaties by which they joined originally said.


In spite of what many people think Texas never retained the right to leave the Union at its own desire. It can however subdivide into smaller states!

[Thorne]

I still see no difference in the terms. Nor do I see any dicotomy in believing in both. For me the fact that you admit a possibility is actually sufficient.
Should there be a creator, even considering the Bible, we would have no concept of what a day constitutes for said being. Nor when they were satisfied with their work.
Believing in it is one thing. Finding evidence for it is quite another. But regardless of how you want to define the biblical "day", the entire sequence of creation as shown in Genesis is wrong. Therefor impossible. After all, how can you have light on the first day but the sun, moon and stars on the fourth. And the earth coming before the sun? Um, I don't think that would work.

[Bren122]

There is an essential divide at the heart of the European ideal (Germany v France v Britain) that would make it unlikely that Europe will ever be a true Federation like the US or Australia.

At the moment the only countries that count are Britain, France and Germany. No other nation has the same political, military and economic strength of these three. No other nation in Europe has the capacity to challenge them for leadership- and they have no compelling interest to see either of their rivals elevated to a position of authority. Put quite simply there are more reasons for maintaining the current arrangement which allows independent action.

[denuseri]

So its politics as ussual then huh?

That figues, the only thing thats changed over here is which asshole is in charge lol.

[MMI]

What bren says may be true, but isn't it ironic that the origins of the EU lie in an attempt to prevent any further rise of extreme nationalism after WW2, and the Coal and Steel Community was said to be the first step in the federalisation of Europe.

However, I do believe that, eventually federalisation will come about, despite our differences. After all, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a union of 4 countries which still consider themselves distinct form each other, have separate legal systems, administrations and culture - some would say that the English have more in common with Americans than with Scots or Irish, and the Scots might find greater kinship with Canadians or Australians than with the English or Welsh. Germany is itself a federation of German principalities and dukedoms, and Italy was formed from a number of independent city states and kingdoms, each of which retains its own identity still. So why not all of Europe eventually?

I'm sure someone, some day, will manage to accumulate enough power to himself to govern Europe as its President, rather than the weak form of presidency it currently has. I personally believe there is more to gain from federalisation than there is to lose.

[IAN 2411]

There is an essential divide at the heart of the European ideal (Germany v France v Britain) that would make it unlikely that Europe will ever be a true Federation like the US or Australia.

At the moment the only countries that count are Britain, France and Germany. No other nation has the same political, military and economic strength of these three. No other nation in Europe has the capacity to challenge them for leadership- and they have no compelling interest to see either of their rivals elevated to a position of authority. Put quite simply there are more reasons for maintaining the current arrangement which allows independent action.

You have a very good point Bren and i am not against what you are saying, but i also believe that at some point things will have to change. At the moment America is dictating without saying a word, and one reason is that their President is the most powerful man in the western world. America is rich, it is powerful on sea, air and land, and the cobination of France, Germany and GB does not get even close. For these three countries that are always bickering at each other to come together, there would have to be a world wide crisis; but even then i think that it would be a coalition of Premiers. One such event would be that the ballance has been tipped towards the United States so much that Europe would be in fear of them. I know this sounds harsh and unreal but shit happens in life, there would then be teritoriel battening down of the hatches. I am not talking about war i am talking about European fear of powerful nations, and that is why Europe has been picking at the British powers for the last twenty years. Russia would not get involved unles they feared a Mongolian/Chinese and asian invasion, and it too would look to Europe, because Russia might be a big country but it still vulnerable from the south. This might not happen in my life time, and it might not happen in yours, but I think that it is the next process in world order. There will be no named federation, there will be only The Americas, Europe as one, and asia, and after all this has been achieved there will still be uncertainty and fear, it is human nature to be untrusting.

Regards ian 2411

[MMI]

... For [France, Germany and GB] that are always bickering at each other to come together, there would have to be a world wide crisis; but even then i think that it would be a coalition of Premiers ...

The question then is, what happens after the crisis passes? Will the three Premiers go their separate ways, or will the most influential/powerful of them want to stay in charge?

[DuncanONeil]

Believing in it is one thing. Finding evidence for it is quite another. But regardless of how you want to define the biblical "day", the entire sequence of creation as shown in Genesis is wrong. Therefor impossible. After all, how can you have light on the first day but the sun, moon and stars on the fourth. And the earth coming before the sun? Um, I don't think that would work.


Our ligt comes from the Sun, Now!

[Thorne]

Our ligt comes from the Sun, Now!

Great! So where did the light come from before the sun and stars were created? Just a generalized glow throughout the universe?

[MMI]

Great! So where did the light come from before the sun and stars were created? Just a generalized glow throughout the universe?

Actually, Thorne, that might be about right. After all, scientists talk about seeing traces of the Big Bang in background radiation, which is the same in every direction you look.

Of course, proof of the Big Bang would just about be the end for God.

[DuncanONeil]

Actually, Thorne, that might be about right. After all, scientists talk about seeing traces of the Big Bang in background radiation, which is the same in every direction you look.

Of course, proof of the Big Bang would just about be the end for God.

Proof of the Big Bang would do nothing to make an end for God!

[Thorne]

Actually, Thorne, that might be about right. After all, scientists talk about seeing traces of the Big Bang in background radiation, which is the same in every direction you look.
True, but it is not visible radiation. Therefore it is not light.


Of course, proof of the Big Bang would just about be the end for God.
No, you can't really say that. There is always the possibility, however remote, that some god started the whole shebang. But it would kill the myth of the biblical creation (as though that needs any more killing) and would relegate the Judeo/Christian/Islamic version of God to the fairy tale scrap heap where he belongs.

[MMI]

I don't know about you Thorne, but I can't see ultra violet light, nor infra-red ... ;)

... and it was the biblical God I was referring to.

If the Big Bang was caused by some other uncreated instigator, it does not fit the usual understanding of a god, which, most of all, requires to be praised, lauded and worshipped. One would have thought that any Supreme Being worth His salt would know He was pretty damned good without having to be told.

[denuseri]

Well you all have fun making fun in this thread of everyone who believes in anything that you dont. Peace.

[MMI]

Well you all have fun making fun in this thread of everyone who believes in anything that you dont. Peace.

There's no need to be so sensitive, den. People here are derided for holding all sorts of opinions. People with socialist sympathies and people who are pure capitalists; supporters of Bush, Obama fans; gun abolitionists, people who believe in the right to own firerms; Catholics, Protestants, Jews ... if we can all take it, then so can God.

Otherwise, he'd be better off not reading this thread at all.

[Thorne]

Well you all have fun making fun in this thread of everyone who believes in anything that you dont. Peace.
I'm not making fun of anyone. It's always been my stance that people can believe what they want to believe, as long as they don't try to force those beliefs upon others.

And anyone here who would like to make fun of my disbelief, they're welcome to do so. Just provide some evidence, that's all I ask.

[Bren122]

The biggest influence, and this is true of anywhere in the world, will be the US. Too much has to go too right for too long for China to propel itself past the US in the timeframes most people envisage. The US will be THE major power for some time to come.

Russia is looking to regain its Soviet former glory, but it is facing a demographic crisis (Islamification), a population crisis and an economic crisis. Further, there is no guarantee and very little hardware to stop China turning much of Siberia into a defacto part of China.

If the Ukraine can gain access to energy from any source other than Russia it may assume a larger role in Europe, but until that time it will rely on the interests Poland, Germany and Russia to maintain their independence. Roughly the size of France and with a similar population it could be the breadbasket of Europe with the right investment.

Poland is the only Eastern European nation likely to challenge for a leadership role in Europe. It has to get past a generation of political, economic and criminal corruption before that will happen.

Spain and Italy are too backward politically to offer the stability required for a European-wide role. No other nation has the size, population or political/diplomatic establishment to come close to Germany, France and Britain.

Britain gains far too much from its roles as No1 US ally and head of the Commonwealth to ever seriously contemplate a full share of Europe. Because it can't/ won't take that full share it must ensure that neither of its rivals gain too much from a position of leadership. It may support common military and foreign policy goals but British Military thinking is very different to France/Germany and European Foreign Policy is much too soft for British interests.

France gains far too much economically from the current arrangements which prop up its inefficient economy and helps its governments to avoid implementing long overdue reforms. Its attempts to form a French version of the Commonwealth or a Mediterranean league are nothing more than attempting to shore up French political influence in the face of continued German economic expansion. The French military desperately needs updated tanks, small arms and artillery, and none of its home made systems comes close to matching German or British equipment but neither can they simply 'buy foreign' so the military keeps falling behind.

Germany's needs would be better met by casting off the old EU and the drain of the Common Agricultural Policy and create a Mitteleuropa. France uses the historical memory of German policies in WW1 and WW2 to remind the rest of Europe of the dangers of allowing a strong Germany go its own way. it also has an imbalance, politically and economically, with the integrated East Germans. But the biggest break on German power is the strength of the Greens and Socialists and their ideological commitment to peace at all costs.

There is no threat now or likely that will ever draw these three away from their separate foreign policy commitments and ideals to form a tripartite government of Europe. Without all three committed, any one can create enough doubt in the smaller nations to stymie any effort at closer integration.

[steelish]

If the Big Bang was caused by some other uncreated instigator, it does not fit the usual understanding of a god, which, most of all, requires to be praised, lauded and worshipped. One would have thought that any Supreme Being worth His salt would know He was pretty damned good without having to be told.

God does not REQUIRE praise, laudation, or worship. People are the ones who believe that. My belief is that God requires each one of us to live as purely good as we can with our thoughts and actions towards our fellow man. God wants us to emulate his goodness as much as each of us are capable of doing. I do not believe we need to attend church and throw money in the coffers to be believers. God is all around us and within us. Some people simply choose to denounce him, rather than have a quiet and unabiding faith in him.

[Thorne]

God does not REQUIRE praise, laudation, or worship. People are the ones who believe that. My belief is that God requires each one of us to live as purely good as we can with our thoughts and actions towards our fellow man. God wants us to emulate his goodness as much as each of us are capable of doing. I do not believe we need to attend church and throw money in the coffers to be believers. God is all around us and within us. Some people simply choose to denounce him, rather than have a quiet and unabiding faith in him.

I must say that your version of God is much more tolerant than the traditional version. In fact, it's completely at odds with the biblical version of Yahweh/Jehovah. Throughout the Old Testament God smites those who fail to worship or praise him, and even some of those who do.

As for denouncing, I have no wish to do that to those who believe in gods of any kind. I will denounce those who try to force others, through legislation or threat of bodily harm or any other means, to abide by their beliefs.

[steelish]

Throughout the Old Testament God smites those who fail to worship or praise him, and even some of those who do.

No doubt. However, the bible was not written by God himself but by people.

I once had a debate with my father over God and faith. He is of the mind that ONLY Christians go to heaven. I argued that my belief is God does not turn away someone simply because they are ignorant of a specific faith. How can he condemn someone who is born as a Buddhist? Someone who only knows one way of life? However, I do believe that people intrinsically know right from wrong and/or evil from good and choose to live life one way or another.

Do I think God punishes a little boy for being born a Jihad and who has killed by the time he is 10? That is not something I know the answer to. Maybe he shows the child the truth of goodness and gives him a chance, maybe he doesn't. All I know is that only God can pass judgement, and based upon the 10 commandments and the knowledge that they are rules that are designed to keep us good and pure (as good and pure as a human can be), then I find it difficult to believe that God cannot see true goodness in the heart of one who stands before him in judgement.


As for denouncing, I have no wish to do that to those who believe in gods of any kind. I will denounce those who try to force others, through legislation or threat of bodily harm or any other means, to abide by their beliefs.

I also abhor those who knowingly do bad things and think that by "confessing their sins" they are completely cleansed and can go to heaven. I'm sorry, but I truly believe God can see right through that tactic.

[Thorne]

No doubt. However, the bible was not written by God himself but by people.
I agree, but again, our point of view is in marked contradiction to many who believe that the bible is the actual Word of God, and woe unto those who would disagree!


All I know is that only God can pass judgement, and based upon the 10 commandments and the knowledge that they are rules that are designed to keep us good and pure (as good and pure as a human can be), then I find it difficult to believe that God cannot see true goodness in the heart of one who stands before him in judgement.
But didn't we get the ten commandments from the bible? If so, then by your own words, they were written by men, and not by God.

The truth is that people can and do behave properly even without a belief in God or gods. It has been shown that morality is a survival mechanism for people, allowing large groups to live together more or less smoothly. There's no reason to believe that people are only good because of God. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that those areas of the US, at least, which are most religious also have higher crime rates than areas which are less religious.

I also abhor those who knowingly do bad things and think that by "confessing their sins" they are completely cleansed and can go to heaven. I'm sorry, but I truly believe God can see right through that tactic.
If there were an omniscient God then yes, I would expect he could see through that. But Yahweh, of the Bible, doesn't seem to care how his worshippers come to him, only that they do.

[MMI]

All I know is that only God can pass judgement, and based upon the 10 commandments and the knowledge that they are rules that are designed to keep us good and pure (as good and pure as a human can be), then I find it difficult to believe that God cannot see true goodness in the heart of one who stands before him in judgement.



I also abhor those who knowingly do bad things and think that by "confessing their sins" they are completely cleansed and can go to heaven. I'm sorry, but I truly believe God can see right through that tactic.

In passing judgement, God is passing judgement on Himself. If a man does evil, it's because God gave him the freedom to do so, but insufficient discrimination to avoid doing it.

[DuncanONeil]

True, but it is not visible radiation. Therefore it is not light.


No, you can't really say that. There is always the possibility, however remote, that some god started the whole shebang. But it would kill the myth of the biblical creation (as though that needs any more killing) and would relegate the Judeo/Christian/Islamic version of God to the fairy tale scrap heap where he belongs.


Sorry can't quite accept that the referenced discovery would "kill the myth of the biblical creation". Being as a "Supreme Being" is by definition unknowable, their skills and abilities are also unknowable.

[DuncanONeil]

I'm not making fun of anyone. It's always been my stance that people can believe what they want to believe, as long as they don't try to force those beliefs upon others.

And anyone here who would like to make fun of my disbelief, they're welcome to do so. Just provide some evidence, that's all I ask.


Making fun does not require evidence. Convincing does!

[DuncanONeil]

God does not REQUIRE praise, laudation, or worship. People are the ones who believe that. My belief is that God requires each one of us to live as purely good as we can with our thoughts and actions towards our fellow man. God wants us to emulate his goodness as much as each of us are capable of doing. I do not believe we need to attend church and throw money in the coffers to be believers. God is all around us and within us. Some people simply choose to denounce him, rather than have a quiet and unabiding faith in him.

Should one be accepting of Jesus of Nazareth. There are two Great Commandments. All either of those requires is "love" and nothing else!

[DuncanONeil]

I must say that your version of God is much more tolerant than the traditional version. In fact, it's completely at odds with the biblical version of Yahweh/Jehovah. Throughout the Old Testament God smites those who fail to worship or praise him, and even some of those who do.

As for denouncing, I have no wish to do that to those who believe in gods of any kind. I will denounce those who try to force others, through legislation or threat of bodily harm or any other means, to abide by their beliefs.


Were Yahweh were truly a venial God Abraham's son would not have survived!

[DuncanONeil]

No doubt. However, the bible was not written by God himself but by people.

I once had a debate with my father over God and faith. He is of the mind that ONLY Christians go to heaven. I argued that my belief is God does not turn away someone simply because they are ignorant of a specific faith. How can he condemn someone who is born as a Buddhist? Someone who only knows one way of life? However, I do believe that people intrinsically know right from wrong and/or evil from good and choose to live life one way or another.


I was born and raised Roman Catholic, spent 13 years in a Catholic school. And I was taught that a faithful following of YOUR religion is sufficient for God's mercy.
In addition, at a time when it was common belief, that I could not enter another Church. As part of my religion class we were to go out in the community and interview priests and ministers of other faiths and report the interview to the rest of the class. The result, I can only speak for my understanding, was a revelation that in the basic tenets of all religions wer precisely the same.

[Thorne]

Sorry can't quite accept that the referenced discovery would "kill the myth of the biblical creation". Being as a "Supreme Being" is by definition unknowable, their skills and abilities are also unknowable.
But somehow all those religious leaders seem to know about them? That would be a contradiction, wouldn't it?

But perhaps what they claim to "know" is really just speculation, based on a lack of understanding of the real world. Like how a bronze-age nomad would have viewed the world.

[Thorne]

Were Yahweh were truly a venial God Abraham's son would not have survived!
I think you meant "venal", as in corrupt?

And if he were not venal, he wouldn't condemn a sinner's innocent children. (2 Samuel 12:13-18)

[DuncanONeil]

But somehow all those religious leaders seem to know about them? That would be a contradiction, wouldn't it?

But perhaps what they claim to "know" is really just speculation, based on a lack of understanding of the real world. Like how a bronze-age nomad would have viewed the world.

Basically all I was told was; God was all seeing, all powerful, and all knowing.

[DuncanONeil]

I think you meant "venal", as in corrupt?

And if he were not venal, he wouldn't condemn a sinner's innocent children. (2 Samuel 12:13-18)

Venial - venal, I never claim to be a typist. And being human I can make mistakes. But venial is most correct.

As for the reference. I read it. I have never been one to be very comfortable reading and using small parts of anything that is parsed as many verse quotes in the Bible. Anyway I also am not one that claims the Bible is word for word the only criteria, nor that God concerned himself with day to day operations of humanity. Kind goes against the concept of free will! I did have a number of concerns with the reference, too short, and divorced from the situation at hand. Reading more of Samuel raised additional concerns.

[Thorne]

Basically all I was told was; God was all seeing, all powerful, and all knowing.
Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular here, but far too many people base their beliefs only upon what they've been told, and not upon rational thought.

I was taught, through 12 years of Catholic schooling, that God was all good, all knowing and all powerful. (This is, of course, the standard Judeo/Christian/Islamic God.) It was also accepted that God was eternal, unchanging. Yet the only evidence we have for these statements are religious texts written by men about a being they cannot possibly begin to understand, by their own admission. So my question must be, how do we know just what, or who, this God is? Or if he even exists? We have no evidence for anything said in any texts, whether Bible, Torah or Quran. Hell, one of the greatest stories in the Old Testament, the story of Moses and the Exodus, may be nothing but a fairy tale! There is no evidence to suggest that anything written about this ever actually happened, in any manner. How can we trust anything else written there, then?

[Thorne]

Venial - venal, I never claim to be a typist. And being human I can make mistakes. But venial is most correct.
It wasn't my intention to correct your spelling or typing. I'm just trying to understand your meaning. By my dictionary, venial means, "Easily excused or forgiven; pardonable", which did not appear to apply to what I thought your were saying. Venal, meaning, "characterized by corruption" seemed more accurate. I'm sorry if I was wrong.


As for the reference. I read it. I have never been one to be very comfortable reading and using small parts of anything that is parsed as many verse quotes in the Bible.
I don't much care for it either, but this tactic is frequently used by those who wish to use the Bible to support their own positions.


Anyway I also am not one that claims the Bible is word for word the only criteria, nor that God concerned himself with day to day operations of humanity. Kind goes against the concept of free will! I did have a number of concerns with the reference, too short, and divorced from the situation at hand. Reading more of Samuel raised additional concerns.
Everything I was ever taught about the biblical God raised concerns for me. A God who is all good and all loving should not allow evil to exist, or allow innocents to be punished along with the guilty. A God who is all knowing contradicts the concept of free will, too. And if He knows something will happen, how can He become angry when it does?

No, everything I have learned tells me that, IF a god or gods created the universe, they did it for reasons we poor mortals cannot possibly comprehend, and believing that they did it just for us is a level of pride which would make one worthy of the biblical hell. As near as we can tell, our existence in this universe is the result of a nearly infinite series of cosmic accidents and random occurrences. One tiny change in that sequence eliminates humanity, as we know it, from the universe. And believe me, the universe would not miss us.

[DuncanONeil]

"(T)hrough 12 years of Catholic schooling, that God was all good, all knowing and all powerful. (This is, of course, the standard Judeo/Christian/Islamic God.) It was also accepted that God was eternal, unchanging"

You can not be trying to say that any being that can accomplish creation is not outside the understanding of mankind. Any "culture" sufficiently advanced will appear to operate as if by magic to a "primitive" culture.

12 years, huh, got you beat by one. Have you already forgotten one of the primary God questions we all asked? "Can God make a rock so big he can not pick it up?"

[DuncanONeil]

Quote:
As for the reference. I read it. I have never been one to be very comfortable reading and using small parts of anything that is parsed as many verse quotes in the Bible.

I don't much care for it either, but this tactic is frequently used by those who wish to use the Bible to support their own positions."

In my early teens a pair of Witnesses came to the door. Made a quote and presented the Book to show me. It was part of a sentence. Did not make much sense, read the whole sentence, did not make much sense either. Ended up reading the whole paragraph. At that point the mean was a bit clear but my understanding was the opposite of what they cited.
I began to discuss that with them but did not get very far.
Not for that reason. ----
My mom came to the front of the house and made me come in and shut the door!

[Thorne]

You can not be trying to say that any being that can accomplish creation is not outside the understanding of mankind. Any "culture" sufficiently advanced will appear to operate as if by magic to a "primitive" culture.
No, I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that, if such a being existed, such that it's very being is outside the understanding of mankind, then no one, especially those self-proclaimed religious leaders, would be able to claim an understanding of that being. And to decide, without any evidence to confirm it, that all of the universe was built just for us smacks of a pride which those same leaders would condemn as sinful.

[Thorne]

Not for that reason. ----
My mom came to the front of the house and made me come in and shut the door!
An obviously intelligent woman!

[denuseri]

BTW the consept of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscientient, or even omnibenevolent deity does not preclude or negate free will in anyway whatsoever.

From each creatures personal perspective the theory of consepual awarness of ones fate or destiny if it does exist shouldnt preclude the fact that since you have no foreknowledge or way of precieving your own fate (trapped as we are by the human condition) that speculation on it doesnt rob you of it.

As for the existance of Evil geting in the way of omnibenevolance; I shall refer you to the philosopher St Augustine who wrote so much about it in his work "The City of God".

[Thorne]

BTW the consept of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscientient, or even omnibenevolent deity does not preclude or negate free will in anyway whatsoever.

From each creatures personal perspective the theory of consepual awarness of ones fate or destiny if it does exist shouldnt preclude the fact that since you have no foreknowledge or way of precieving your own fate (trapped as we are by the human condition) that speculation on it doesnt rob you of it.
Semantics! Regardless of one's personal knowledge, if an omniscient being has already foreseen the results of everything, then anything you do will only lead to those results. While you may perceive it as free will, from the perspective of such a being it's predestined.


As for the existance of Evil geting in the way of omnibenevolance; I shall refer you to the philosopher St Augustine who wrote so much about it in his work "The City of God".
Yes, theologians have been wrestling with this problem for centuries, with little or no success. Evil comes from Satan, they say. But God created Satan, and that omniscient God knew that Satan would bring evil to the world, so God knowingly created evil.


From "God: The Failed Hypothesis", by Victor J. Stenger:
"The problem of evil can be formally stated as follows:
1. If God exists, then the attributes of God are consistent with the existence of evil.
2. The attributes of God are not consistent with the existence of evil.
3. Therefore, God does not and cannot exist.
The God in this quote is, of course, the traditional Judeo/Christian/Islamic God as defined in the Old Testament. While this does not say that a god or gods cannot exist, it does refute the existence of God as we've been taught to understand him.

[denuseri]

Predestination that you are incable of knowing doesnt change the fact that from your perspective: you and you alone decide for yourself what your going to do in any given situation.

The one attempting to argue symatics here isnt me.

It doesnt refute anything whatsoever when you put Stenger up against Augustine and Occum with his razors.

Not all theologians say evil comes from "satan" (which wouldnt matter eaither since god made the devil) and being all powerful the devil must work for him by Stenger's model or not exisit at all, which only really addresess the issue of omnibenevolance.

Which btw isnt one of the criteria of being a surpreme deity persay.

[Thorne]

Predestination that you are incable of knowing doesnt change the fact that from your perspective: you and you alone decide for yourself what your going to do in any given situation.
Let's play a little game. You are my prisoner and I have given you a choice. Press the wrong button and you will die. Press the right button and you will go free. You have no reason to believe I am lying, and have every reason to believe that you may get free. You don't know that both buttons will kill you, so you assume you have a choice, but in reality your fate is sealed.

Just because YOU think there is a choice, or free will, does not make it so. An omniscient God implies that your fate is sealed. Your choices, while perhaps important in your mind, are meaningless.


It doesnt refute anything whatsoever when you put Stenger up against Augustine and Occum with his razors.

Not all theologians say evil comes from "satan" (which wouldnt matter eaither since god made the devil) and being all powerful the devil must work for him by Stenger's model or not exisit at all, which only really addresess the issue of omnibenevolance.
Stenger's arguments are just as valid as Augustine's. Neither has any evidence for his side, although to my mind Stenger has the more logical argument, based upon the attributes of God as defined in the Bible.


Which btw isnt one of the criteria of being a surpreme deity persay.
I don't know about any generic supreme deity, but God, as defined in the Bible, is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. So he either permits evil things to happen, which means he is not omnibenevolent, or he doesn't know when evil will happen, which means he is not omniscient, or he cannot do anything to contain evil, which means he is not omnipotent. In ANY of these cases he fails the test, a test based on his own purported words, as put down in the Bible.

[steelish]

Let's play a little game. You are my prisoner and I have given you a choice. Press the wrong button and you will die. Press the right button and you will go free. You have no reason to believe I am lying, and have every reason to believe that you may get free. You don't know that both buttons will kill you, so you assume you have a choice, but in reality your fate is sealed.

Just because YOU think there is a choice, or free will, does not make it so. An omniscient God implies that your fate is sealed. Your choices, while perhaps important in your mind, are meaningless.

Ah yes, but the predetermined fate God gives you (if indeed He is omniscient) might be based upon your life up to that moment. How you lived it...how you treated others...how you reacted to situations, etc.

[steelish]

I don't know about any generic supreme deity, but God, as defined in the Bible, is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. So he either permits evil things to happen, which means he is not omnibenevolent, or he doesn't know when evil will happen, which means he is not omniscient, or he cannot do anything to contain evil, which means he is not omnipotent. In ANY of these cases he fails the test, a test based on his own purported words, as put down in the Bible.

MY theory - and it is JUST a theory of mine - is that God was the meaning of creation, and just as compared to the universe, our lives on earth are just a blink of an eye as far as "time" goes. God created life to allow good and evil to wage against each other, and it is up to each individual to wage their own war against evil. Some lose, others win.

As to predetermined fate; my theory on that is that the decisions we make in life (and the decisions of the people who surround us) lead us to a moment in time where the continuation of our life or our death might occur. I believe we make myriad decisions daily that could easily effect whether we live or die.

Case in point; You might be driving a motorcycle because it is a sunny day and you decided to go for a pleasant drive, but the person driving in the lane beside you decides to fiddle with the radio, or possibly to send a text message. Suddenly, their car swerves into you and you get into a fatal accident. Was your death your fault? Maybe, because you didn't HAVE to get on that motorcycle. The accident surely wasn't your fault, but your death could have been prevented had you made a different decision.

[Thorne]

MY theory - and it is JUST a theory of mine - is that God was the meaning of creation, and just as compared to the universe, our lives on earth are just a blink of an eye as far as "time" goes. God created life to allow good and evil to wage against each other, and it is up to each individual to wage their own war against evil. Some lose, others win.
I can understand this, even accept the possibility of it. But it is NOT Jehovah you are talking about here. The god you hypothesize would not be likely to intervene in human affairs, would not really care whether or not people believed in him, would not be interested in having people worship him. He would have started the universe and let it go.


As to predetermined fate; my theory on that is that the decisions we make in life (and the decisions of the people who surround us) lead us to a moment in time where the continuation of our life or our death might occur. I believe we make myriad decisions daily that could easily effect whether we live or die.
Obviously this statement holds true as far as we can know. We do make decisions every day, and they do affect our own future, however minutely, and the futures of those around us. I have no problem with this.

And again, I am dealing with the traditional definition of the biblical God. As an omniscient being, by definition, he knows the entire path of the universe, and every particle and beam of light, from creation to destruction. Since the bible places him outside of the universe, infinite, he knows everything about everything even before he creates it, again by definition. So regardless of how we may believe our actions are performed by our own free will, those actions were written in the mind of God, if you will, even before the creation of the universe. That is predestination.

Now I don't believe any of this. I don't find any need to hypothesize beings who have no interaction with the universe, beings who do not help or hinder us along our paths. As far as I can tell, such beings have no real meaning in our lives.

[DuncanONeil]

[QUOTE=Thorne;837746]Yes, theologians have been wrestling with this problem for centuries, with little or no success. Evil comes from Satan, they say. But God created Satan, and that omniscient God knew that Satan would bring evil to the world, so God knowingly created evil.
QUOTE]

As I remember Satan created himself!

[Thorne]

[QUOTE=Thorne;837746]Yes, theologians have been wrestling with this problem for centuries, with little or no success. Evil comes from Satan, they say. But God created Satan, and that omniscient God knew that Satan would bring evil to the world, so God knowingly created evil.
QUOTE]

As I remember Satan created himself!
If that were true then Satan would be God's equal, able to create something from nothing.

The way I learned it was that Satan, or Lucifer as he was called, was an angel created by God and cast down for rebelling against God. But with his omniscience, God would have known beforehand of Lucifer's evil, yet he created him anyway. Therefore, either God created evil, or he is not all knowing, or he is unable to stop what has been preordained. In any of these cases he fails the test for God (Jehovah).

[steelish]

I can understand this, even accept the possibility of it. But it is NOT Jehovah you are talking about here. The god you hypothesize would not be likely to intervene in human affairs, would not really care whether or not people believed in him, would not be interested in having people worship him. He would have started the universe and let it go.

Not necessarily. I believe our life on earth is God's test for us.

[DuncanONeil]

[QUOTE=DuncanONeil;837898]
If that were true then Satan would be God's equal, able to create something from nothing.

The way I learned it was that Satan, or Lucifer as he was called, was an angel created by God and cast down for rebelling against God. But with his omniscience, God would have known beforehand of Lucifer's evil, yet he created him anyway. Therefore, either God created evil, or he is not all knowing, or he is unable to stop what has been preordained. In any of these cases he fails the test for God (Jehovah).

"Lucifer as he was called, was an angel created by God and cast down for rebelling against God."
See! As I said Satan created himself.
"with his omniscience, God would have known beforehand of Lucifer's evil," I take it then that you are of the opinion that God must not allow free will? Omniscience is not so much knowledge of will happen. But of all of the courses of results for all decision points.

[Thorne]

I take it then that you are of the opinion that God must not allow free will?
Not exactly. It's my opinion that the idea of God, as defined in the Bible, is incompatible with the idea of free will.


Omniscience is not so much knowledge of will happen. But of all of the courses of results for all decision points.
That's one definition, certainly, but not the one which is taught in the Biblical version of God. Or at least the why I was taught it. And much depends on which specific religion you are talking about. Since none can actually know anything real about their god, they make up their own definitions of what that god is, what he can do and why he does it. And when society grow beyond those definitions, why, they change the definitions!

[DuncanONeil]

Not exactly. It's my opinion that the idea of God, as defined in the Bible, is incompatible with the idea of free will.
Sorry I can not see such a restrictive description. Free will existed and is mention since the Garden.



That's one definition, certainly, but not the one which is taught in the Biblical version of God. Or at least the why I was taught it. And much depends on which specific religion you are talking about. Since none can actually know anything real about their god, they make up their own definitions of what that god is, what he can do and why he does it. And when society grow beyond those definitions, why, they change the definitions!
I will be honest, I do not remember the exact language of the lessons I received. Yet the concept of an All Knowing, All Powerful" God does not alter the description of knowing the result of all different actions by any of the creations. Now that you made me think thjat far back I do have a vague recollection of such a comment being made eithe by the nuns in elementary or priests in High School.

[denuseri]

Non the less we have the illussion if nothing else of free will, regardless of weather or not God allready knows our choices etc, we still make them for ourselves.

But, some take a much more trancendental approach to the interpetation of these things.

It is also written that God is Love, and that God resides within each and every one of us, yes even you Thorne lol.

We are after all made in his image.

[Thorne]

Sorry I can not see such a restrictive description. Free will existed and is mention since the Garden.
I'm aware that it's mentioned. I just don't agree that it's possible with the biblical interpretation of God, as I remember my lessons.
I will be honest, I do not remember the exact language of the lessons I received. Yet the concept of an All Knowing, All Powerful" God does not alter the description of knowing the result of all different actions by any of the creations. Now that you made me think thjat far back I do have a vague recollection of such a comment being made eithe by the nuns in elementary or priests in High School.
Yeah, that's part of my problem. I've spent so many years gratefully forgetting those lessons it's hard to dredge them up again.

[Thorne]

But, some take a much more trancendental approach to the interpetation of these things.

It is also written that God is Love, and that God resides within each and every one of us, yes even you Thorne lol.

We are after all made in his image.
Everyone is entitled to take whatever approach they wish. That's one of the joys of freedom.

But my points are in reference to the Biblical Jehovah, who is supposedly the author of the Bible, and who is anything BUT love. And thankfully I am absolutely confident that there is no God residing within me. For we are not made in His image: rather, He was made in ours, with all our faults and foibles. And as mankind, through ignorance, created God, so mankind, through education, will eliminate him.

[denuseri]

Or one day may find he is real and within us all.

God didnt write anything directly on the pages of a book unless in extension through us of his omnipotence. In which case, everything ever written by the hand of any man, including pornographic stories, is also written by god.

[DuncanONeil]

Yeah, that's part of my problem. I've spent so many years gratefully forgetting those lessons it's hard to dredge them up again.

What is it about the "bibical interpretation of God that leads you to a decision that there is no free will and that no God?

[DuncanONeil]

"(S)o mankind, through education, will eliminate him"
Good luck with that!


Everyone is entitled to take whatever approach they wish. That's one of the joys of freedom.

But my points are in reference to the Biblical Jehovah, who is supposedly the author of the Bible, and who is anything BUT love. And thankfully I am absolutely confident that there is no God residing within me. For we are not made in His image: rather, He was made in ours, with all our faults and foibles. And as mankind, through ignorance, created God, so mankind, through education, will eliminate him.

[Thorne]

What is it about the "bibical interpretation of God that leads you to a decision that there is no free will and that no God?
The Biblical interpretation, as I understand it, says that God knew, even before creation, everything that would occur after creation, right up to the end of the universe. That implies that the future is fixed, and therefore free will is an illusion. This is the way I was taught, and one of the things which pushed me away from the Catholic Church was their refusal to answer questions like this. It was always a case of "taking it on faith", which I found I could not do.

[Thorne]

"(S)o mankind, through education, will eliminate him"
Good luck with that!

The gods were created by men in an attempt to explain those things which they were ignorant about and unable to control, such as storms, earthquakes, volcanos, and the like. As our understanding of the natural world and the universe at large has grown, the need for having supernatural creatures to explain things has diminished. The advent of the home computer and the internet, bringing unprecedented means of information to virtually everyone everywhere is allowing great strides in understanding our real place in this universe, and the growing desperation of religions trying to maintain their hold on people's minds is allowing people to see those religions for what they really are. I honestly believe that, eventually, the greatest part of mankind (except for a few fanatics and idiots) will toss off the shackles of religion and realize their true potential.

I have faith in us.

[denuseri]

The existance of Gods or God if you will isnt just some catch all imaginary thing used to explain our surroundings nessesarally, it's also a way of explaining those things we see within our selves sometimes those things that come from ourselves.

Perspective is everything when it comes to understanding something.

Ancient societies and faiths despite being seperated from each other developed many similar views on these things.

The more we discover through science and faith the closer to understanding the actual true nature of the universe and of god we come.

Ancient knowledge isnt nesseasarally popycock just becuase its been maligned by the faithless or those who think only one way exists of looking at things.

[Thorne]

The existance of Gods or God if you will isnt just some catch all imaginary thing used to explain our surroundings nessesarally, it's also a way of explaining those things we see within our selves sometimes those things that come from ourselves.

Perspective is everything when it comes to understanding something.

Ancient societies and faiths despite being seperated from each other developed many similar views on these things.

The more we discover through science and faith the closer to understanding the actual true nature of the universe and of god we come.

Ancient knowledge isnt nesseasarally popycock just becuase its been maligned by the faithless or those who think only one way exists of looking at things.
Ancient knowledge should not be confused with ancient superstitions. Knowledge is gained through experience and education, while superstition is just a way to explain something you cannot, or will not, understand. As you gain understanding the need for such explanations declines. A perfect example is lightning.

Christians always considered lightning to be a sign of God's wrath, inflicted upon sinners for their evil ways. Until Ben Franklin determined the true nature of lightning and, more importantly, developed a defense: the lightning rod.

Church leaders called the lightning rod a tool of the devil, intended to divert God's wrath. Business owners, on the other hand, realized that their buildings weren't getting struck when protected by the rods. When Church leaders realized that the town churches were being struck repeatedly while the town brothels were not they quickly changed their tunes.

Education and understanding eliminated the need for God as an excuse for being struck by lightning. Superstition feeds that obsolete need.

A Greek mathematician, Eratosthenes, calculated the diameter of the Earth around 240BC, so the ancients certainly had the knowledge and the intelligence to use that knowledge. But that does not mean that everything they believed should be taken as gospel. They were just as easy to manipulate and mislead as modern humans.

Certainly people can believe that God resides within them. There is no one who can prove them wrong. But if they cannot admit to themselves that this belief is based only on faith and not on evidence they are no better off than some ancient shepherd cowering in his field because a comet hangs in the sky. Maintain your faith if it comforts you. But don't deny reality and don't attempt to force that faith on others.

[denuseri]

Ancient knowledge should not be confused with ancient superstitions. Knowledge is gained through experience and education, (As well as through meditation and wisdom and can come from within in some peoples experience) while superstition is just a way to explain something you cannot, or will not, understand. As you gain understanding the need for such explanations declines. A perfect example is lightning. Another one is mans beilief that clairvoance was a fallacy, yet remote viewing techniques have proven thats not entirely true.

Some Christians always (and other christans figured it wasnt, surprising huh?) considered lightning to be a sign of God's wrath, inflicted upon sinners for their evil ways. Until Ben Franklin determined the true nature of lightning and, more importantly, developed a defense: the lightning rod. Benjamin Franklin was raised as an Episcopalian but was a Deist as an adult.

Again some: Church leaders called the lightning rod a tool of the devil, intended to divert God's wrath. Business owners (who were also most likely christans), on the other hand, realized that their buildings weren't getting struck when protected by the rods. When Church leaders realized that the town churches (a lot of churches allrady had a version of the rod in a cross on a steeple, where do you think Ben may have got the idea) were being struck repeatedly while the town brothels were not they quickly changed their tunes.

Education and understanding eliminated the need for God as an excuse for being struck by lightning. Superstition feeds that obsolete need. Todays magic is tomarrows science too.

A Greek mathematician, Eratosthenes, calculated the diameter of the Earth around 240BC, so the ancients certainly had the knowledge and the intelligence to use that knowledge. (and yet they also belived in a great many other things you wish to blithely ignore or refuse to see as valid, when they were part of the whole) But that does not mean that everything they believed should be taken as gospel. They were just as easy to manipulate and mislead as modern humans. There we agree, but I think all of it should however be considered and studdied in much greater detail before poetions are dismissed.

Certainly people can believe that God resides within them. There is no one who can prove them wrong. But if they cannot admit to themselves that this belief is based only on faith and not on evidence they are no better off than some ancient shepherd cowering in his field because a comet hangs in the sky. Maintain your faith if it comforts you. But don't deny reality and don't attempt to force that faith on others.

Again, I agree, no one should force anything on anyone, including athiests and scientists. And some of those beliefs are based on more than just faith depending upon which beliefs we are speaking of here. The world is not the Catholic Church that maligned you so during your youth.

[Thorne]

Ancient knowledge should not be confused with ancient superstitions. Knowledge is gained through experience and education, [B](As well as through meditation and wisdom and can come from within in some peoples experience)
I disagree. Inspiration and understanding (wisdom) may come through meditation, but not new knowledge.

Another one is mans beilief that clairvoance was a fallacy, yet remote viewing techniques have proven thats not entirely true.
You have proof of clairvoyance? And remote viewing? All I've ever heard of are illusionists' tricks and failed tests. I would love to see your evidence of these things. (Remember, anecdotes are not evidence.)

Benjamin Franklin was raised as an Episcopalian but was a Deist as an adult.
What difference does that make? His work is the same, regardless.

(a lot of churches allrady had a version of the rod in a cross on a steeple, where do you think Ben may have got the idea)
Actually, the crosses were part of the problem, providing a relatively easy path for lightning. And since they weren't grounded they didn't drain off the excess charge. Instead, they transmitted the full force of the lightning to the building (church).

Todays magic is tomarrows science too.
Today's magic is either illusion for entertainment or for fraud. Magic does not work. Every scientific test of magic or supernatural claims has failed. While it is true that a sufficiently advanced technology could appear to be magic, the very fact that we are aware of that possibility allows us to search for the science behind it, rather than chalking it up to magic.

A Greek mathematician, Eratosthenes, calculated the diameter of the Earth around 240BC, so the ancients certainly had the knowledge and the intelligence to use that knowledge. (and yet they also belived in a great many other things you wish to blithely ignore or refuse to see as valid, when they were part of the whole)
Such as? I am quite willing to accept anything they may have believed, provided there is evidence for it. Their belief that Zeus ruled from Mt. Olympus, and such, does not impress me, however.

I think all of it should however be considered and studdied in much greater detail before poetions are dismissed.
It has been considered and studied. And discounted. That's what science does! That's why we have chemists rather than alchemists. That's why we have astronomers rather than astrologers (although there are still far too many of those around, too.)

no one should force anything on anyone, including athiests and scientists.
I can't speak for all atheists and scientists, of course, but I don't believe in forcing beliefs on anyone, either. But keeping theists from equating superstitions with science is not forcing beliefs, but keeping the two separate. Telling people that there's nothing wrong with not believing in God (as in the atheist bus ads campaigns) is not forcing anyone to believe in anything.

The world is not the Catholic Church that maligned you so during your youth.
I wouldn't say I was maligned by the Church. More like misled and lied to. But while I am more familiar with the Catholic Church than any other religions, I am against all types of religions. It's my belief that religion causes more problems and divisions in the world, simply by segregating people into believers and non-believers, than any other form of human endeavor. Using people's fears of death to control them is not my idea of a good thing.

[steelish]

Certainly people can believe that God resides within them. There is no one who can prove them wrong. But if they cannot admit to themselves that this belief is based only on faith and not on evidence they are no better off than some ancient shepherd cowering in his field because a comet hangs in the sky. Maintain your faith if it comforts you. But don't deny reality and don't attempt to force that faith on others.

I am completely against organized religion. Most are zealots who (I agree with you) use people's faith as scare tactics to enforce the behavior they require their congregation to exhibit.

That being said it is my belief that faith in God's existence is exactly that...FAITH. I do believe he resides in each one of us. I feel He is the guiding force for good. Some call it a conscience, I prefer to believe it is God's guiding hand. Call it what you will. I for one think people are entitled to their own opinion in regards to faith. I do not believe in trying to "recruit" followers as organized religions are want to do. What another person believes (as far as religion goes) doesn't directly effect my life. Thank God (a slight pun there) that I live in the States and not where it WOULD effect my life, such as Ireland, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

[Thorne]

That being said it is my belief that faith in God's existence is exactly that...FAITH. I do believe he resides in each one of us. I feel He is the guiding force for good. Some call it a conscience, I prefer to believe it is God's guiding hand. Call it what you will. I for one think people are entitled to their own opinion in regards to faith. I do not believe in trying to "recruit" followers as organized religions are want to do. What another person believes (as far as religion goes) doesn't directly effect my life. Thank God (a slight pun there) that I live in the States and not where it WOULD effect my life, such as Ireland, Israel, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.

Even here in the US religion has far too great an influence on our lives than it should. Where I live they still have "Blue Laws" proscribing what one can do on Sundays. Your religion, or lack of it, has no bearing on whether these laws apply to you: they affect everyone. Those who protest against gay marriage are mostly doing so on religious grounds. Just ask gays in California if the tenets of organized religion have affected their lives. The same goes for abortion. And how likely would it be for an avowed atheist, for example, to be elected President?

Religion in the US is so ubiquitous that we don't always see how it affects our daily lives, whether we believe or not. Most vocal atheists are striving to make people aware of that. They aren't trying to "recruit", or convert, people. They don't care what you believe. All they (we) want is for religious beliefs to be kept out of our lives. Don't make something illegal on Sunday if it's not illegal on Saturday. Don't push religion into public schools. Don't make others adhere to a religious belief of what constitutes a "proper" marriage.

As I've stated often here, I have no problem with those who believe in God, or gods. If you find comfort in your beliefs, who am I to say you are wrong? And if I don't feel the need for such a belief in my life, who is there to tell me that I am wrong?