What has America become?

Good Golly Moses! It is theoretically possible to simply bury your opponent with immense unanswerable posts. I'm not sure if I can dig out from under this or not. It is certainly piled mighty high and deep.

I'll be back later, if I don't reconsider. I may attempt brevity instead.

There is really far too much wrong with what has preceded to cover it all. There are value judgements (by folk who insist I can't make them) that are in error. There is historical miscontextualization. There is a remarkable misunderstanding of Christian theology.

I say rope, you say snake. I say Good & Evil, you say God & Devil. Christianity is not a religion of duality! There is not a yin and yang. Good is not God (though God is Good!). Evil is not Satan (though Satan is Evil).

Perhaps these aren't straw dogs. Maybe you genuinely don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know that I would care to match IQ scores with the folk around here. I see a lot of brilliant people. That is a part of what is so frustrating, because I know that my language skills have been adequate to convey my clear meaning. I see a lot of brilliantly mislead persons and I see a lot of logical error. I hope I am not seeing deliberate obtuseness, fillibuster, and ideological persecution.

I demonstrated that Christian influence shaped our foundational documents. I demonstrated that we have no state religion. You ignored that, pointed to a treaty that says our country is not founded on a religion, and write as you've proven something contrary to my point.

Are you being intentionally obtuse, juntel? The treaty you cited confirms PRECISELY what I said.

The language itself was plain in all citations. I reiterate my summation.

America does not permit any State Religion. We do not prohibit the People from the "free exercise" of whatever religion (or lack thereof) they may choose. We have Religious Liberty, not Secular Supremacy.

And it is not Despostism of any sort. You can try to explain away your inconsitencies and rationalize your prejudices, and you can do so at great length.

If I can't resolve all of these problems, I'm sorry. I'll try later. But you won't listen.


[c] ~~~[/c]


As I mentioned earlier, I'll have to come back to this. I thought that the "America" question was more pertinent to the thread topic, so I went there first. It is pretty d@mned arrogant for a foreigner to lecture American's about our nation's constitution, unless of course, he is right.

He isn't, and won't admit it despite being shown. I don't understand that, and I won't speculate about it.

Similarly, it might seem arrogant for me to insist that I know God personally, that most people even lacking that experience DO understand the reality of Good & Evil, and that America's doctrine of Church-State separation does NOT mean that a town can't have a Christmas tree. Unless I'm right.

I am, and because I am right, I won't recant.

I cannot demonstrate, with electrons across a cable and words on a screen, that God is what He is. He can arrange a convincing demonstration for you by Divine intervention (as he does for me). I can pray for that.

I can only offer that History itself demonstrates the reality of Good & Evil. I can't enter the entire record of humanity on this post. The reader is expected to understand this, especially now that I have said so twice. If one's own personal experiences in life do not testify to the same, I can't reach you. (And vice versa, I'm sure.)

I have demonstrated that this nation was founded upon religious principles. Juntel's citation confirms that we are not a Church-state. The cited treaty does not contradict the Declaration or the Bill of Rights.

Have I denied atrocities commited by politicians and aristocrats in the name of Christ? Have I said that Christians are perfect and have perfectly applied the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? Have I claimed that America has none of the same sordid history as Europe?

Does any of this have anything to do with the Gospel? With the Sermon on the Mount? With the True Church, or for that matter, with the great moral teachings of other faiths?

No.

It has to do with people.

And if people will tyrannize and conquer and misrule in the name of the Nazarene carpenter's moral authority, how much more so under amoral authority?

I'll try not to do this ever again.


[c] ~~~[/c]

juntel:


"Perhaps Sunday School would have been more helpful!"

"Wisdom begins where the fear of God ends."
- André Gide

The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom.
- Holy Scripture


"Your hostility to religion, despite your occassional disclaimer, is apparent"

Try as you may, these christians are my friends, and I, theirs.
Try making friends who aren't christians; and if you do, keep an eye on your watch to see how long they'll stand your views about their opinions.

My non-Christian friends are Americans and are used to healthy free expression, including their opinions about my ideas and vice versa. One is a geneticist at St. Jude's and the other a secessionist who runs a video store. One has a doctorate in genetics, the other graduated from the school of hard knocks. We are, what's more, close friends. Plus there are quite a few acquaintences on the radio from all walks of life.

Again, you speak of what you do not know.


"Perhaps you are simply not well-enough acquainted with history. I don't know. Christian Faith is responsible for none of the atrocities you mention."

So, let me see: we did not have the exceptional experiences you had to have a firm grasp of reality; and i'm not acquainted with history, which explains my mistakes.
What next? My shoe size is wrong?

I'm sure you are quite capable of picking out a shoe that fits. You haven't demonstrated otherwise to me. But, just as you don't know my agnostic and atheist friends, you don't know God. And you have demonstrated that you are better acquainted with propaganda than with history.

If for you no historic calamity or genocide have been commited by christians, then so be it.
I guess you reason that if wrong doing has been done, it couldn't be by real christians because real christians do not do atrocities.
"Tails I win, Head you lose" attitude all over again.

True Christians are as fallible as anyone. (Though some would argue the Pope infallible on spiritual matters.) But True Christians WILL NOT do the things you describe. There are plenty of folk who call themselves "Christian" but are far from it. Being born to a Christian family, or joining a church, does not make one a Christian. (Unless you mean culturally, but that has nothing to do with the Faith.)


"I maintain that it was the very acknowledgment of Good & Evil that let folk see when the corrupt nobles who took over the Church were themselved wicked despite their robes"

One doesn't need the notion of Good and Evil when one is starving and decomposing, to see that their rulers are corrupt.

What does "corrupt" mean? The language itself, our "map" of Reality, has Good & Evil at every crossroads. This is a philosophical speculation, not an example of history. Show me the people who suffered Evil who did not know it for what it was, people who had no concept of it.


And don't tell me there's no historical facts for these; or that these were not from true christians.

Now that is a real example of intellectual despotism. First he tells me what my Constitution says, then he tells me what my Bible says. Now he tells me what I MAY NOT say.




May, as most english-born speakers know, and as I learned as a second language when I was young, does not solely mean doubt.

"You may be a good person deep down, but it is your thinking that is clouded"
In this previous sentence, "may" doesn't mean that i doubt that you are a good person (really).

You are out of line here.

Forgive me. In the context of your stated preference to an unbelief in Good & Evil (is that fair?), I obviously misread you.

"AFTER THEIR REVOLUTION? More historical inaccuracy. Or revisionism"

I do not have to go on lengthy explanations: the 1917 overthrow of the monarchy has been called the October Revolution well before you and I were born.

You are again out of line.

I see that you are talking about the Bolchevik (Russian) Revolution of 1917. My mistake. I was talking about the Communist Revolution, which is global and ongoing, as I pointed out, as you redacted for the purpose of this particular revision.

"These wolves in sheep's clothing hardly cherished the Gospel."

But oh! they did indeed!... They did, but by their way of thinking, by their misplaced desire to make their religion the only one standing, for the glory of their god... I do understand that you disagree totally with their actions, but that doesn't make them less believers; they just pushed their absolute desire to maintain their truths much farther than you would (at least, I hope so...)

You know what they cherished? I know that if they HAD cherished the Gospels (many of them had never read or even heard them) they would not have done these things. These were in fact, wicked men, wealthy and powerful people who used armies to replace popes and who chose their relatives as church leaders. They weren't maintaining Truth! They would look through a telescope at the Moon and deny their own eyes. They were maintaining Power not defending the Faith (which the True Christian understands, needs no defense (which is NOT what I'm doing either)).

"'under these civilisation-builders' Which I take as a reference to me"

Paranoia.
You are no civilisation-builder in any way.

Never claimed to be. That was one of your straw dogs. I talked of civilization-maintenance. The "builder" part was your concoction.

Strike three.
You have clearly twisted at least three times my words.
Who's the revisionist here, then?

This reaction was predictable. I thought so as I pointed these things out. Strike One, I'll concede. Strike Two, I overrule (hey, I've as much right to overrule as you do to call!). Strike Three, I'll concede as a Foul Ball, just for the sake of comity.


"Because they were greedy wicked people who could care less about Good and Evil"

Their greed was to take only their own beliefs in Good and Evil as the sole truth.
Their wickedness was to act savagely upon those beliefs.

Their greed was for wealth and power. They acted savagely to protect this. They cloaked it in the robes of the Church. Go back and read the record. I can't post it here. Was your comment an honest error derived from your insufficient study, regurgitated propaganda (for example, citing a 1797 treaty and ignoring the primary documentation of this nation), amateur revisionism, or an unsupported imposition?


"You, too, are qualified to debate these matters, however ridiculous your ideas."

There you go again.
Demagoguery, paranoia, and intellectual bigotry.

<u emagogue -- a leader who uses the passions or prejudices of the populace for his own interests.[/u]

I don't seem to be leading very many people around here! I have no dog in this fight, not even a straw one. So without a following, without a self-interest (it is, in fact, arguably against my self-interest), that just leaves passions and prejudices. I might be somewhat prejudiced, and I am certainly passionate. But I'm hardly a demagogue.

Paranoia -- mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others.

Just because everyone is out to get me doesn't mean I'm paranoid!

Bigot -- a person who is intolerantly convinced of a particular creed, practice, etc.

Am I intolerant? You may have actually convinced me that I was rude. But I think you'll find that, like most American's, I'll fight for your right to hold any ridiculous idea you prefer. Say! I already talked about this in the very next point!

"If we dare to assert ourselves, we don't hold it against others who do the same."

If constantly branding the opposite views to yours as ridiculous isn't against others asserting themselves, than I don't know what is...

What's ridiculous is constantly representing me as someone who constantly brands opposing views as ridiculous. I don't. But my views are as subject to ridicule as anyone's. That doesn't mean that I do not have esteem for Niffiwan, Lorien Wanderer, you, or anyone else I disagree with on this point.


...I have, I think, exposed reasons (or at least a view of what i belief) for why I think that your absolutist point of vue is wrong

I think you've failed in that.

or annoying,

Which is your subjective feeling, and I can't argue with that. I must instead, apologize.

You have merely said that opposite views are ridiculous, a product of a weak grasp of reality, and over and over agains merely said: "human history shows that"; but not once have you really supported any of these labels.

Ridiculous is my opinion. I've said that Good & Evil are self-evident. You seem to say that self-evidences are impossible, or at least no way to found a civilization. I disagree. This is an impasse.

These posts are long enough. I can't enter the record of History, and even if I did, we would obviously not agree on it's meaning. We do not share enough of a common frame of reference to gain a shared understanding on these points. Where I have demonstrated, you have ignored.

As I said before, and repeat here: You do not demonstrate, you impose. And THAT is a clear mark of a despotic mind, or at least one that could do serious damage....

I have offered reports of fact, my own opinions, and my confirmed judgements. You disagree. I can live with that. You want to understand more? I'll pray you do. It is, frankly, beyond me to bridge this impasse. You ask the impossible.

"The despotism you accuse me of, only comes into play if I attempt to silence him and his viewpoint"

If I wanted to silence you, I would merely shut up.
That I continue this discussion will, I hope, be understood as a wish from me to hear you further.

I appreciate that, which is why I've labored so long over this.

Why would I want to hear you further?
Because I can doubt!
Silencing you would just be a way for me to be content of my views...

Another way might be by "defeating" me in debate, or confirming your prejudices, etc. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt here, or I wouldn't give you my time.

And that is a major difference between you and I (and in fact, a major difference between you and my christian friends...)

You make a moral value judgement about me without knowledge of my circumstances. So you can doubt! So can everyone else. That's easy. Lazy (comparatively).

Belief takes REAL effort.


"You would require a reasonable reason to doubt Good and Evil? Then why not furnish one to believe in them?"
....
"I already stated my belief that these are imponderables; I wouldn't ask you what i believe is not askable (sp?)"

I WOULD indeed require a reason to doubt Good & Evil, if you intend, as the Communists still do, to establish a global order that denies what is self-evident to so many. We are talking at cross-purposes (I think you are confused) because OBVIOUSLY such a reason CANNOT be supplied. Which means, as Marx understood, that Despotism is necessary to overcome folk who will not drop this belief (among other folk who probably need to be overcome).


"You evidently really and truly do believe all this progaganda the Left has unleashed against the American Way!"

That paranoia is really becoming pitifull.

This is in reference to your citation of a 1797 treaty. I could be wrong, but I suspect that you picked this up from some text or essay that was trying to somehow prove that our Republic's foundation was without religious influence. You did this without answering the points I raised from our nations primary founding documents. I could go further with many quotes from the Founders themselves, but again, I'm not trying to post the entire record. I'm therefore trying not to post anything out of context, as you did. There is a Revisionist school of History, dominated by the Left, doing just this sort of thing. I think you fell for it.


"it is the very recognition of Good & Evil that is the foundation of a free society"

Show it, rather than just say it.
To state is not to show; to impose is not to demonstrate.

"It is an amoral State that becomes despotic"

Ditto.

Well, I did state my views, didn't I? Is this a cultural problem? I thought I made clear that I am not imposing my views. As you said earlier, if I wanted to silence opposition, I could myself shut up and drop it. Americans, I'm told, tend to seem very brash, abrasive, imposing, etc. to other folk. If so, it's only fair to say we don't take it wrong when others are as well.

state -- 20. to declare definitively or specifically, to state one's views. 23. to fix or settle, as by authority.

I did the former. You accuse me of the latter. Is this clear enough now? If not, take a look at Johnny Lurker's last post. At any rate, it hardly is despotism. We've done it for a couple of centuries now and still have as much freedom as anyone on the globe.


Communism in its own way was

WAS? Or did you mean something else? I'll take it that you did.

quite similar to institutionalised religions: despotic, denied the right to doubt the Party (or Church or Bible, in religion's case), alienated those who thought differently, had Gods (Lenin, Marx) and Devils (capitalism), etc...

Well, I feel like this might be progress. The key expression here is "institutionalized religions! I couldn't agree more!

Communism was far from amoral: their moral was the strict adherence to Party line, as in Christinanity there is strict adherence to Gospels (and in many cases also to old testament archaic tribal warfare mentality, despite the gospels). Communism imposed their own morals on the people.

I'll accept this as partial proof that you can't get away from Good & Evil. It's always SOMEONE'S morality, isn't it?


"I said it is lazy (prideful might be better, certainly anti-pragmatic) to ALWAYS doubt (...etc...)"

If anyone would go to lengths to effectively ALWAYS doubt, you could call that a tiring process. But by no way can this be lazy!

It avoids the labors imposed by Faith.

What I personnaly said about doubt is clear.
Especially about the importance of daring to doubt what others try to prevent you from doubting (by calling your actions ridiculous for example...).

In some sense, I agree with this. So does the Christian Faith. It is when Doubt is habitually substituted for Inquiry that it exercises a despotism over the mind as effective as any other.

Doubting doesn't mean not believing.

A or Not A Not A is not A. Not choosing to believe is still not believing.

Doubt is the natural consequence of having an open mind...

Can't argue with that.

"It is certainly ridiculous to insist upon governing by it [doubt]"

Doubt isn't an instrument to govern; but it is necessary for a government or society who want to avoid the path of cancerous despotism. And if the government/society is indeed based on a religion, then the use of doubt by the watchdogs of that society is the best weapon against the tyranny of the uniformist tendencies of a religion. By having a universalist society, in which no religion is preferred, in which religion is kept out of the ruling decisions, and left with the people who believe in it, one can then have a society where people are nearer to equality regardless of their religion, color or creed.

Here! Here!

"...through the growing dominance of anti-Americanism at home and abroad..."

(I only took that part of the sentence, since i only want to comment on it)
Anti-americanism abroad is part of the usual anti-western movement in third-world countries, and in muslim contries.
Too bad the american people, the individuals, are made part of that hatred, which should only be an hatred of those who manipulated financially and politically these regions out of western self-centered agendas; the american individuals had no real part in these.

They could well have been allies today; but they've been peed on for so long. And they mistakenly resort to violence through their religions, since only these now give them energy to dare release the shakles outsiders have put them in.

Here! Here!

But of course, that could also just be evil revisionism from my part...

But what I meant was that there is a form of Anti-Americanism that seeks to change our Republic (and the American Culture) into something else entirely.



Getting it Stra

"(1) Good & Evil do not exist, or if they do, they have no place in constituting a civilization. It is religious despotism for me to insist otherwise"

Imho, one cannot know as an absolute certainty, outside of personal relgious belief (and there are many of those) that Good and Evil exist as real individual entities (God and Devil, as the capitalization implies).

No. (I really should have explained this earlier!) I capitalize for archetypical emphasis. Besides, as mentioned earlier, Dualism is not Christianity.

It is religious despotism to force them as so-called self-evident truths, and to denigrate and abuse those who would think otherwise, those who dare to doubt.

I have no power to "force" anything. My mode of definitive expression is not that powerful.

You may insist on your beliefs: that in itself isn't despotism, it is merely sharing.
The sharing stops though when there is imposition. As you have tried to do by branding other's view as ridiculous and out of grasp of reality, even though you should know as a mature adult that the uncountable experiences people all over the world and times should humble you into not treating other people's opinions as ridiculous!
D@mn! That's so basic! Why do I have to explain this?
That one is straight enough I hope?!

Again, the context is that Good & Evil did not exist, and we should form no government based upon such a principle, which I find ridiculous. It is not despotism to say so. Sue me if you can't handle that. I've apologised enough.

"(2) It is religious despotism to insist upon the self-evident, despite the lack of any proof (much less evidence) to the contrary"

It is, imho, religious despotism to force upon others one's own so-called self-evidences.
Imponderables do not have proofs; but they can be believed in.

When did I force anyone to do anything? Now THIS is tedious.

Moreover, I will add that not all truths may be provable; since that is true in the simple domain of mathematics (Godel's works), I believe this to be true also of nature itself, and life, which are way more complex than Maths.

But because proofs are not always possible, and we can only rely on personal beliefs, and because each may have his/her own personal belief, respect among these believers is important and healthy.

And one calling another's view as ridiculous is far from respectfull; that is the way of the despots.

The way of despots is the use of force to impose belief or silence. If I had no respect for those who offered their ridiculous opinions, I would not tell them what I thought. I don't respect whining.

"(3) The Christian Faith, not the despots who abused it, is responsible for the despotisms of Western history"

The despots in question were christians, whether you like it or not.
I have clearly stated that I did believe they did their abuses against the teaching of the gospels their cherished so, even though you may want to insist they didn't cherish them: but again, they cherished the gospels in their own ways, wheter you like it or not.

They did not know the Lord. They rarely knew anything of the Gospels. If they cherished them, they would have behaved themselves otherwise. Your belief in this is a preference that is not based upon what we know of the circumstances.

Wheter you like it or not, there is not ONE christian faith: there are many. These faiths are all different interpretations based on one book, true. I do not know if there is such a thing as this ideal church, consisting of only true christians and of which JC is the "head"; again, imho, this is an imponderable, such as wheter or not the Archangel Gabriel did indeed spoke out the content of the Quran for Muhammad to write down.

Then ask, and ye shall receive. Knock, and the door will be opened.

My comments, when I speak of "Christianity", is about the christianities that have been effectively crystallized by those interpretations, all with their own attitude and zeolotry toward their precious absolutes; some take peacefull attitude to exhalt these (amish for example), and some took bloody warfare to impose and spread them (starting especially from Constantine).

It is interesting to me that Constantine did the things he did under the name of Christianity, but did not himself "convert" until on his deathbed. Others began their hypocrisy sooner in their careers.

The despotisms of Western history have, imho, common grounds: human greed, human arrogance, human intolerance towards other humans with other views. And since being a christian in no way protects a human from having these "vices", then it is not surprising that, wanting to impose their God, the Creator of all the world, all over the world, these christians, armed with the certainty their bible and priests gave them, acted despotically throughout their "crusades" (and again, I repeat, against the basic teachings of the gospels they loved so).

How then can they be considered True Christians and how do their actions reflect negatively on the True Faith?

Interestingly enough, there was an entire Crusade (I forget which) that was excommunicated for their anti-Christian actions.

If a religion tells you you must not be free to think differently, and just believe blindly, then this religion teaches you a vice of the mind.
Dogma is the foundation of despotic states.

I am not in anyway defending institutional dogma. I testify about God.


"(4) The US Constitution does not mean what it says, and means what it does not say"

That has already been commented above.
It's not my doing.
It is for you Americans to solve this riddle, if I may call it that way.
Don't blame me for 18th century events and documents...

I blame you for making definitive assertions in ignorance. I'm not certain, but it also seems that you willfully disregard the meanings of the words.

"(5) I, in fact, am a despot for refusing to buy any of this"

You refusing to "buy" any of this (well, "this" being my corrections above) is a healthy sign of doubt: it's a good sign indeed!

Naturally.

It is not important for me that you believe my stuff: at least really think about what I wrote, not to change opinions about your deity, but to have more respect of others' view (and not calling them ridiculous for example): if I could have even a small contribution in your renewed respect for another's opinion (even if it's not mine), then I wouldn't have written in vain.

Vanity. All is Vanity. But I took your point a long time ago. But in Alabama, we respect Rights, not Opinions.

No. If I think you have a way of thinking very akin to despots (but in fact you are much nicer than them), it is rather for you branding as "ridiculous", and with other such attributes, another's point of vue, and calling upon so-called self-evidences to justify these denigrations. I'm not afraid to repeat myself about this, over and over again.

Obviously. But if I think you have a way of thinking that is ridiculous (but in fact you are probably a lot more intelligent than me), I am not afraid to repeat myself about this, over and over again.

But at some point I will reach the limit of my own patience.


You do smell Despotism after all...
Good thing Alabama is far from here, that kind of stench makes me puke.

Ridiculous.



the Lorien wanderer

How quickly they forget what they want to forget...

The white man's burden. Did something go twang right now? The Christians and the Church who considored it their 'duty' to 'civilize' the 'barbarians' of Asia and Africa by converting them to christianity.

The missionaries who went to actually do that sort of thing undertook the Great Commission (as they are commanded) without force or even much money.

I think President McKinley of the US summed up the Western,

Agreed.

Christian

Not very.

worl'd attitude while giving the reason for Philippine's annexation. He said, "There was nothing left to do but take them all, and to educate the Filipinos and uplift and civilize and Christianize them as our fellow men for whom also Christ died."

That was his justification for American Imperialism. I don't care for it either.

"Not by might, and not by power, but by my Spirit," says the Lord.

Again, because something is done in the name of the Christian Faith, does not mean that it derives any authority thereby. It usurps it, rather.

The slave trade was started by the Christians

This is egregious enough for me to break my rule about History lessons:

Portugal imported its first African slaves in the 1400s. I believe I recall that this was an Islamic/African tribal enterprise. I have no idea how Christian the Portuguese merchants were, but not very, imho. Queen Isabella prohibited the sale of Caribbean Indians into slavery in Spain. Pope Paul III excommunicated Catholic slave traders in the early 1500s. Later in that century, English participation in the slave trade began when John Hawkins hijacked a slave ship; Queen Elizabeth condoned the trade. (Hawkins also introduced tobacco to England!) The first black slaves landed in North America when Phillip II of Spain sent them to St. Augustine. (Florida, not the saint.)

So we have church leaders condemning the slave trade and the nobility encouraging it. Not an indictment against Christianity, I'm afraid.

and it was a profitable practice too. But it was confined to the coastal regions of Africa.

Because of Christian resistance, perhaps?

Thus when all of Asia was conquered and the world reached a saturation point, the Christians used the excuse of abolishing slave trade to colonialise Africa! Rather laughable don't you think?

Again, I think this is a case of rich folk and their political puppets rationalizing slavery or imperialism with whatever was handy.

Colonialism, imperialism, fanaticism, slavery, Nazism, fascism-they all have the same root. Religion. The communists got SOMETHING right after all. They got rid of it.

And they STILL managed to kill more individuals in the 20th Century than all these causes combined. What was their excuse?

The Dark ages too, in case you forget was solely because of Christian fanaticism.

Some historians refuse to even use the term, but I always thought the Dark Ages were caused by the fall of the impotent and decadent Roman Empire. (Not to mention invading hordes of pagan barbarians!) I thought it was the Church that preserved learning throught this period.

It was the Church that deemed those who stepped out of line heretics, not some poor misled atheists.

That's an undeniable part of the historical record. Who's debating that?

In fact, I believe religion is a major cause of violence in the world today. This IS self evident, as the many exmples supporting my statement come to mind immediatly.

I'm glad SOMEONE around here understands the concept of self-evidence.

And if Israel and the Skinheads and Kashmir did not come rushing to your mind, it proves you are a blind supporter of religion, your mind is closed and there is nothing I can possibly do to convince you of its evils...

"We'll give him a fair trial, and THEN we'll hang him!"

Sure, folks use religion, patriotism, propaganda, and any number of means to induce populations to evil. Kashmir and Israel are certainly locations where religion is one of the means used for this. As for the skinheads, I've even heard them quoting Scripture. (They usually are completely out of context, of course, and in no way adhering to the Spirit of the matter.)

In each of these cases, I also see monstrous demagogues (real ones) who employ religion for their purposes. These often have little or nothing to do with the religions they claim to represent.

I don't blame the religion of Ghandi for the acts of wicked Hindus. He might say, they were acting against the tenants of their religion. (I'm not as sure of Mohammed, but I am sure that religion has only as much power as people give it, even if it is wicked...)

If you've seen a lot of black crows in your life, does that preclude the possibility of an albino crow?

I think this is the first time anyone ever suspected me of being a blind supporter of anything!

But rest easy. I am not a blind supporter of religion. I'm not even a blind supporter of would-be leaders who call themselves "Christian."

And though I once was blind, now I see.

I pray you will, too.

(Good luck in your studies when you get here!)

[To JL: it's agreable to both, writer and reader. Sincerely, it's good to see that side of you.]

[To LorienWander: Right on!]


"It is theoretically possible to simply bury your opponent with immense unanswerable posts"

Bury?
What, you want one liner answers?
As i said before to LorienWanderer, I would be glad to use a better image to condense my thoughts further, but havent' that skill yet.

As for the "unanswerability", believe me, the length of my posts are in direct proportion to your unanswerable posts: again, and I don't mind repeating myself here, that is the nature of imponderables: many more words needed to explain single words.

I don't believe in easy answers about life: saying God or Good for each beautifull thing i see, or Devil or Evil for the bad ones - that is not my way.
Single word answers as Good or Evil are out of reach for me, for in the end they say nothing, they only are other words to imply the existence of an Ulitmate Benefactor and an Ultimate Scapegoat.

I will not thread that path.


"I say rope, you say snake"

I was making an image, and you know that.
You were not talking about a "real" rope, and I, not a "real" snake.

"I say Good & Evil, you say God & Devil"

Oh please! Drop that capitalization of good and evil if you mean simply good and evil!
We can agree there are good things, and bad things in life; not all people agree always on the details of what they are. The words "good" and "evil" can be used easily in language, without any superstitious/supernatural meaning, and I obviously wasn't against that kind of use of them.

But you capitalize these words. If this is a misunderstanding, then here's your chance:
What for you is the difference between (capitalized) Good and God, and the difference between (capitalized) Evil and Devil ??

(My speaking of Good and Evil as the Ultimate Benefactor and the Ultimate Scapegoat didn't begin in this post: I've used it in a previous post, and if you had thought any misunderstanding was going on, then, at that time, you would have intervened...)


"Maybe you genuinely don't know what you're talking about."

As in opposition of faking not knowing what I'm talking about?
Gee...
I don't know if you are just conceited or just paranoid...


"I hope I am not seeing deliberate obtuseness, fillibuster, and ideological persecution"

!!! See my above comment!

"Are you being intentionally obtuse, juntel?"

Are you asking me if what I say is intentionaly obtuse, or really if I am intentionally obtuse?

Was JL talking about me, or about you?



"The treaty you cited confirms PRECISELY what I said."

The quote of the treaty (Article 11) began with:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

You did say:
"Read the Preamble to our Declaration of Independence some time. We, indeed, did base our corner of civilization upon 'religious principles.'
Again, from memory: 'We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable Rights and that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.' There is also a part about '...the laws of Nature, and of Nature's God...'
'Church influence?' You bet. And one of those influences was that the State could not ever command Religion again."

On one hand, the American Government isn't founded on the Christian religion, on the other hand it is founded on Christian principles, included the belief in "Nature's God".

Using a religion's principles and justifying it by the belief in that religion's deity...
If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck... Gilthalion would want us to believe it's a camel...

So don't come at me farting out your accusations : there IS actually a debate about this, and there was one even before you and I were even born.
I didn't invent anything here.

Your subterfuge doesn't hold ground with me, Gilthalion.


"it might seem arrogant for me to insist that I know God personally"

I've never considered that arrogant at all.
... and then you accuse me of putting on straw dogs?!
What a joke that is!


"it might seem arrogant for me to insist that America's doctrine of Church-State separation does NOT mean that a town can't have a Christmas tree"

Never said that was arrogant either.


What was clearly arrogant
was your branding other people's idea
as RIDICULOUS very early in this thread,
in front of this community.

And THAT, i've been quite clear about.


"I cannot demonstrate, with electrons across a cable and words on a screen, that God is what He is. He can arrange a convincing demonstration for you by Divine intervention (as he does for me). I can pray for that"

I never intended you to prove your deity's existence, or if he (or she?) existed that he was what you think he is...

As for "him" making a big demonstration of himself... well, what would faith be about then...?
As one of my catholic friend would say: "God is not an hollywood director..."


"Have I denied atrocities commited by politicians and aristocrats in the name of Christ? Have I said that Christians are perfect and have perfectly applied the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? Have I claimed that America has none of the same sordid history as Europe?"

Then if the answer is "No" to all of the above, you can't deny that Christianity has commited atrocities.

( Do remember please that I have said that these atrocities were against the principles laid down in the gospels)

For me, Christianity is the whole of the christians and those christians' dogmas spread around world and time. For me, Christianity is what we can be sure of what it is about, of what has been done effectively, the good, and the bad.


"Does any of this have anything to do with the Gospel? With the Sermon on the Mount? With the True Church, or for that matter, with the great moral teachings of other faiths?
No."

I have clearly myself indicated that I agreed with you on this: the atrocities commited by Christianity over the ages, from Constantine and on, were done so against the gospels it cherished so.


"It has to do with people"

...and the existence of people, I hope you'll agree, is one of the only thing on which both of us can agree...

From what I believe (and you do not), religions come ultimately from people, not from supernatural entities (gods, godesses, leprechons, whatever...).
So, for me, of course all of this can only have to do with people.
All of it, imho.
Which is what makes us all much more responsible for our actions; and makes us more humble in our decisions: there's no heaven waiting for me if I love my neigbhor and do good, what happens here and now for the here and now and future, is what counts to me.

Paradise and hell are what we, people, make of this world.
Wether or not the objects of attention of religions are real.


"And if people will tyrannize and conquer and misrule in the name of the Nazarene carpenter's moral authority, how much more so under amoral authority?"

How much so?
As much as human nature will permit.
Human nature however need ideal concepts to justify their "libido of conceit and arrogance".
These ideals, and I might say idols, can be gods, gurus, etc...
"God wants it so", "Komrad Lenin would have wanted it so", "Hitler had it right", etc...

Secular authority, on the other hand, does by no way mean that the people in authority are a-moral: they can be - and most of the time would be, since our societies have many religious base - people of faith, of diverse faith even - something which could be find better in an amoral state, than in a state with particular religious concepts at its base.

"Secular" in secular authority just means that this authority is based on human experience and knowledge rather than a particular (very human) faith and ideologies; that it doesn't require an adherence to a particular faith to believe in the state's principle.
A secular government is in no way for preventing the people to go on with their faiths; it is for insuring that other faiths are not thwarthed in their development under a particular ruling faith.

Secularity is about universality, universal acceptence, and not eradication of religions (since anyway the people in office would themselves be of some or other religious faith).
While some better christians are better than others at acceptance of others' religions, past experience teaches us that codifying any such acceptance would be better.

And indeed, with time America has become more and more accepting of others' faith and beliefs...

And that, often to the great dam of it's "original christian" constituents (here in quebec, some bigots call themselves 'pure wool', i don't know if in America there is an equivalent term... 'True Americans' would be one I guess, obviously misnamed).

And often, this more universal acceptance is one (but only one) of those things that make some (but not all) of the more conservative people say that the American Way is being attacked (to calm down Gil's reaction here, let me say that this was not directed to him; the aim was close, but that is the price of hanging out in dubious places).



It is,
contrary to what Gil might want people to believe,
a case of
Religious Supremacy
against one of
Secular Liberty.

"Is this the record for post length?"

Psychoanalysts and psychologists might have something to say about that question...


"The fear of God is the beginning of Wisdom.
- Holy Scripture"

"Samuel said to Saul [as God's prophet of Israel], "I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD.
This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"
-Holy Sriptures, I Samuel 15.

(bracketed comment mine)

I don't think I'll want my wisdom from a god that orders the murdering of children, Gilthalion...

"Again, you speak of what you do not know"

I don't know you.
Do these non-christian friends do?
Do you want to silence them by saying that what they say is ridiculous?



"And you have demonstrated that you are better acquainted with propaganda than with history"

For you, free thought is propaganda.
So don't be surprised that I find your words have less and less meaning as you go along...



"But True Christians WILL NOT do the things you describe"

Good christians, for whom the gospels are not dogmas but lessons, will indeed not do these things.

But Christianity is all christians, the good ones and the bad ones.



"Show me the people who suffered Evil who did not know it for what it was, people who had no concept of it."

It is, indeed, difficult to find in the world, in present and in past, a people without some kind of superstition.

Truth by no means can be a matter of democratic choice, nor of trend, nor of fame, nor of popularity.



"Now that is a real example of intellectual despotism. First he tells me what my Constitution says, then he tells me what my Bible says. Now he tells me what I MAY NOT say"

Please consider the following sentence:

"Don't tell me you've found that book already! That's great!"

(/edited: So, "Don't tell me" can be used as something different from an order.
When i said: "And don't tell me there's no historical facts for these...", this was no different (in intent at least) than "Come on! Don't tell me there's no historical facts for these...".
Of course, a strict literalist interpretation of my sentence would see an order, but no order was intended. I must therefore be more carefull with my english expressions...)



"I obviously misread you"

As you did for the above example.
And yes it's fair in an heated debated.
I may have done so on occasion.
We just need to point them out respectfully to each other, as parenthesis.



"My mistake. I was talking about the Communist Revolution"

Both revolutions are often merged in common parlance, especially by people like me who are not political scholars.

(It's like the "Fermat Conjecture" in Mathematics, which was called the "Fermat Theorem" for so long, even by mathematicians!, even though the conjecture was unproven for centuries.
Only now - well, since a few years ago - can we really call it a "Theorem", rather than just a conjecture, since the proof was finally found...)


"I know that if they HAD cherished the Gospels (many of them had never read or even heard them) they would not have done these things."

Hitler cherished art.
But art is about liberty.
One can cherish without understanding the depth of the cherished object or ideal.

I was clear, Gilthalion, in saying they did not follow the gospels lessons... Cherishing them is another matter...



"I talked of civilization-maintenance. The "builder" part was your concoction."

*Sigh*
Here's the whole paragraph of mine you were originally commenting on:

"Communism may have had a terrible history after their revolution, but so many proeminent christians states (acting contrary to the gospels their cherished so) no only continued to create hell on earth, but gave that despotic tradition a whole new grandeur. Physical as well as intellectual and spiritual slavery have flourished under these civilisation-builders, because they had an unshakable belief in their notion of Good and Evil: If you are not with me, you are against me became a sentence that either put you under the sword of institutionalized christianity (or islam or any other despotic institutionalized ideology), or put you under the Evil team, which was then simply a death sentence, or a promise of so many kind of slavery."
(post-emphasis mine)

In it, you saw the expression "civilisation-builders", and you said:

"'under these civilisation-builders' Which I take as a reference to me"

So THAT is what i found paranoid: that you would think I used the expression to refer to you.
To tell you that it wasn't so, I replied that you were "not a civilisation-builder", ie were in no way referenced to in my above paragraph....

It's beyond tedium for me, now.

<EDIT>I answered a lot of the points in my previous responses. You're not reading me. This is no longer a debate.</EDIT>

juntel I can't reach you. And sadly, I can't keep trying and trying and trying.

All I can do now is pray for you.

As I've said before now, this marvelous technology does not provide a good means for communications of this sort.

Often, you don't know what you're talking about, you're responding emotionally, you're persisting in holding proven untenable positions, you're personally insulting, you're not interested in honest debate, you've show little actual tolerance for the Christian view (at least here, at least my expression of it), and I'm physically exhausted. I mean it. I've got a life outside of these posts and I'm not going to return to this in the future.

If I'm wrong, forgive me, but that's precisely how you come across.

Since you can't (or won't) understand me, and since I can't make myself understood, since you've decided I'm some sort of despotic religious bigot, Goodbye.

[we're just cross-posting Gil: as you write about my previous posts, I write yours. I decided to post in small shots at a time, when time permits.]


"What's ridiculous is constantly representing me as someone who constantly brands opposing views as ridiculous. I don't. But my views are as subject to ridicule as anyone's. That doesn't mean that I do not have esteem for Niffiwan, Lorien Wanderer, you, or anyone else I disagree with on this point."

Actually, I have refered, over and over again, to that same one post you made to Niffiwan.
That you try to ridiculise other points of view wouldn't be difficult to pick out where you did, and I may (I hope!) have already done that.

But what sparked my comming to debate here was indeed that post where you just tried to bully out an opinion by taging it as ridiculous.

And I don't like bullies...



"But my views are as subject to ridicule as anyone's"

And I hope being treated by your own medicine doesn't leave you with a bitter taste in your mouth...



"'...I have, I think, exposed reasons (or at least a view of what i belief) for why I think that your absolutist point of vue is wrong'

I think you've failed in that."

You mean, you have an absolutist point of vue, and I failed to show with it's wrong?

Also, maybe I just didn't try to show you...


"'...or annoying,'

Which is your subjective feeling, and I can't argue with that. I must instead, apologize."

Don't apologize for anybody's subjective feelings
(and please, please, don't take that really as an order now! nor the sentence I just wrote in this parentheses... It's becoming though for me to regulate ordinary english expressions I use...!)



"You seem to say that self-evidences are impossible, or at least no way to found a civilization. I disagree. This is an impasse."

*Sigh again*
Indeed, maybe an impasse.

I say that one's so-called self-evidences maybe another's delusion, or ignorance.

Mathematicians thought that the Natural Numbers were a self-evident system; today, and since at least the 1930's, we know that we don't know if the Natural Numbers is exempt of contradictions (it's called the problem of Consistency), nor if every truths about numbers are provable (called the problem of Completeness). (Of course, that doesn't prevent one from using them!!!!)

Now take nature, life... take physical (and spiritual) reality, which may not be a construct of humans like numbers, and therefore not as simple as mathematics... how can one then consider reality and say there are self-evidences, not to be doubted at all?

What I say, and have said before quite expicitely, is that to refuse to allow oneself to doubt even these so-called self-evidences is at antipodes with a healthy mind or society.

You can found a civilisation to what you believe, as beliefs, not dogma, and say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."...

Or you can be despotic and say: "These truths are self-evident, don't dare doubt them because that would be oh! so ridiculous... just believe in them, don't think, don't question..."

That is what I said and say.



"Another way might be by "defeating" me in debate, or confirming your prejudices, etc. I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt here, or I wouldn't give you my time."

It is in no way my desire to "defeat" you in the debate.
I hope you realize that this debate has existed from well before we were born...

Believe what you want about me, but I have better "watchdogs" than you around me; and around them, me.



"Belief takes REAL effort"

I can only agree with : "Belief CAN take a real effort"

Believers and doubters, both have suffered the despots of civilisations who wanted to impose their beliefs on them.



"I WOULD indeed require a reason to doubt Good & Evil, if you intend, as the Communists still do, to establish a global order that denies what is self-evident to so many."

Firstly, you require reasons for an imponderable problem.

Secondly, Communism have their own self-evidences to impose.
I say it here, as i've said earlier: Communism in itslef isn't that far from being a religion, with their dogmas, gods, scriptures...

My attitude towards so-called self-evidences has been clear: they can be often more a belief than true self-evidences.

And the perfect example from this thread is Good and Evil: more of a belief, with variations depending on which religion/ideology it comes from.



"As you said earlier, if I wanted to silence opposition, I could myself shut up and drop it"

Hmmm.. no... I was saying that that's what I could do.
I didn't say that you doing it would shut me up.

I was absent from this board for long (except for a few posts)

You brought me back.

You brought me back with your calling Niffiwan's views (and by extension all these young people who share his views) ridiculous.

I don't stand in silence when something like that happens.


As for you silencing the opposition... you did say in a previous post (about Niffiwan):
"The despotism you accuse me of, only comes into play if I attempt to silence him and his viewpoint."

Maybe this was more rheotorical from your part, and not to be taken litteraly... I don't know.


"'Communism in its own way was'
WAS? Or did you mean something else? I'll take it that you did"

Sure, take it as "is".
I was thinking about Communist Russia (and USSR) at the time I wrote that. But my comment is equally applied to the applied doctrine itself, and the states that has applied it (and took it as a self-evident truth... )



"Well, I feel like this might be progress. The key expression here is "institutionalized religions! I couldn't agree more!"

And christianity has been institutionalized for long, from since it took Rome's bloody sword, and rather than bury it, used it again, and again...

I have only seen (what seemed to me) true christianity in individuals.
Power does corrupt.



"I'll accept this as partial proof that you can't get away from Good & Evil. It's always SOMEONE'S morality, isn't it?"

It's always someones belief that their morality (which comes religions, superstitions, or ideologies) is "da best".

Again, as i've said somewhere above, truth isn't about popularity: that's someone's belief in his moralist ideology is a worlwide phenomenon doesn't mean that what these ideologies/morals/beliefs are Ultimate Truths.

Persistence of crimes and horrors in this world is no indication of a supernatural Evil
-although it would be a consequence of it.

Persistence of love and beauties in this world is no indication of a supernatural Good
-although it would be a consequence of it.

These facts of our world - crimes and horrors, love and beauty - can be believed to come from supernatural origins, ultimately. But this ain't no self-evidence at'all, no it ain't - at least that's what I believe.
And I believe that not out of proofs or any flashy experience.
It's just my belief; and I don't adhere to the supernatural explanation of the origin of good things and bad things because, well, I don't find a need for it; it's that simple.
You may talk to me about Hitler and such people, but that ain't no reason for me to see a supernatural Evil in action here: I see humanity.

This reminds me of the famous anecdote (that I read in the marvelous "Sophie's Choice"), where a man asked "Where was God at Auschwitz?", to which a Rabi answers: "Where was man?".
Well, for me, "man" was there, all over: in the jews, gypsies, but also in the germans; in the jailor as well in the jailed; in the torturer as well as the tortured.

There was man.

A horrible view of life?
No, not horrible.
Frightening maybe, but not horrible.
Frightening to see that this Evil people were talking about for ages is in all of us, a part of all of us, in all men and women, creeping there in human nature.

But the good news is... so is the Good.

We decide all what this place we live in, called life, is going to be.
It is, I believe, our choice, and ours alone, to decide what we make of it, collectively.

Otherwise, in hoping for an after-life,
or worse: an Apocalyptic Second Comming were all will be fixed by the Big Dude,
we strip ourselves of our deep responsabilities,
and condemn ourselves and our descendence to dire consequences.

As I just inserted at the last moment before posting my previous post...

...we're just cross-posting right now...

And rather than making one humongous post to answer you humongous post, I make some smaller ones, when time permits me.

And when I'm writing a response to a previous post, so do you, and then there's a mix up!

Or whatever...

I do read and listen to what you have to say; don't take the fact that you don't convince me as a sign that i'm not listening.

I'm pretty sure you won't be convinced by what I have to say either; but for me, that's no sign that you don't listen.


We, you and I, won't solve what hasn't been solved for centuries, millenia.


/Edited: ... and as someone has said before (I think it was JL, but I'm not sure), it's quite different when dealing with these things face to face: less misunderstanding, more humaneness...

We are more writing letters somewhat, rather than simply postings.

Well, at least in writing letters, it would be a bit less confusing. (To me at any rate.)

Sorry about the heat. There was more heat than light, I'm afraid.

I really don't think this isn't anything that wouldn't be settled in short fashion over a beer and a pipe.

Or three.

So, juntel, I salute you, and I admire your intellect and your sense of morality.

If you saw this as coming to the rescue of the victim of the ENTMOOT equivilant of a school yard bully, then I would hate to bully anyone and certainly will not give that appearance in future posts if I can help it.

(But you're still wrong about an awful lot! I have it on Good authority!)

I sincerely think we have pushed EZBoard's capacity to the limit, as a tool for communication.

To give you something to smile about, my favorite beer (here in Québec) is called "La Fin du Monde", which litteraly means "The End of the World".

I salute you also.

But I would like you to consider the possibility that what I wrote came not only (and especially not primarily) from my intellect, but rather also from my heart (figuratively speaking).


I respect that you believe that I am wrong about an "awfull lot".
As long as you don't think that something wrong is thereby ridiculous.

My own experience (which is by no means an experience of authority, but nontheless...) has shown me, on so many occasions, that some things that were thought to be ridiculous, turned out to be right.

If I may use in my turn Bronowski's use of Cromwell's plea:

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ,
think it possible you may be mistaken."

((Cromwell himself being quite a religious man; which reminds me I should see again that excellent movie with Richard Harris and Obi Wan Kenobi... heu... sorry, Alec Guiness))

... calling on this plea then, I would say that it should be applied, applied, and applied again; by me; by you; by anyone. And especially by anyone who has any power, like our politicians.
And that, no more no less really, is what I would like to leave here as what I meant (but maybe misexplained) by the necessity of doubting: we could be mistaken, even in the more profound things we believe in...


... but I see that my present post has grown past the length I wanted to give it at first.

I hope our long posts, in the end, will be understood as a desire to share our thoughts, rather than merely bags of wind.

Gil (I can call you that right?)-
"The fear of god is the beginning of wisdom."
then again-
"Not by might, and not by power, but by my spirit."says the Lord.
Clear enough I assume?

The missionaries that undertook the mission went wihtout force and money right? That makes it even worse. If they had been forced to accpet that ideology, it might have been acceptable, But they weren't. They conciously chose to go and 'civilize' the barbarians.

The slave trade. It was started by the Christians and ended by the Christians. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that they started it. Sure they stopped it in the end. thanks to themselves.

"...I always thought that the dark ages were caused by the fall of the impotet and decadent Roman Empire." Rome was the power base of the Church. And it was they who deemed those who dared to question heretics. So dear Gil,did not your Christians do somw thing wrong there?

Oh by the way, it's Gandhi not Ghandi. Popular western misconception. And what acts of wicked hinduism are you referring to? As far as I know, except the occasional fanatic group, Hindus are rather tolerant.

"And though once I was blind, now I see. I pray that you will too."
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Patronizing and condescending. I'm honoured that you'd want to pray for me but I suppose it did not occur to you that it is now that you are blind.

"Anti-americanism abroad is part of the usual anti-western movement in 3rd world countries, and in muslim countries. Too bad the American poeple, the individuals are made part of that hatred, which should be a hatred of those who manipulated financially and politically these regions out of western self centered agendas. The American individuals had no real part in these."
They stood by and watched. tell me what's worse, the criminal who actually commited the crime or the cop who watched it all and let him get away? The hatred against Americans IS against the citizens but it isn't as widespread as you think. There are Islamic countries that dislike the western culture but most of asia has nothing against the US.

As for 'American culture' I wonder if i may out forth a question without offending you. Well I'll take the risk. What is your culture? Divorced parents, kids who are druggies at 11, 13 year old kids gunning down students, stress, racism (which still exists, even though it has been well hidden), teenage pregnancies by the thousands everyday, the eternal McDonalds, the mud slinging in politics...is that your culture? And may I add that Americans (a lot of them) are very hypocritical. They live their lives by a non-existent code of values but all a chap has to do is spout some rubbish about family values, be faithful to his wife, shake hands and smile the endearing boyish smile-and he's the President! Rather hilarious I thought it.

Anyhow, a very happy new year to you guys. Have a blast.

Hmmm...
That quote about "Anti-americanism abroad..." is from me.

True, keeping silent when those who represent you commit atrocities may be somewhat seen as being guilty somehow...

...but only if you know that these things were done.

Western politics for the middle-east is far from well-know to european and american public; now, and then.

In another matter, but somewhat related to this question, remember IranGate...
Covert operations to buy arms for "freedom fighters" (PC talk, Political Creepyness) through commerce with Iran (!).
Of course, the trials turned out to be a farce, with an already alzheimer-stricken president (although not known at the time), and the birth of a new "hero" that make Burt Lancaster's character in "Seven Days in May" almost real...

Anyway...

If Americans (ordinary citizens) are in any way guilty of foreign affairs machinations, it is through ignorance (well managed ignorance), not inaction.
As the press' rights to seek and find once secret documents increase, more is discovered and published about covert ill-interventionisms.
And, usually, these are rightly denounced, and may make the "system" more honest and fair towards these countries. ("may")
But, the ill has been done, and those who are hurt have already turned to means and ideologies that listened to their hurts, to defend themselves; but often these means and ideologies are in turn alienating, full of hate... maybe a somewhat justifiable hate, but nevertheless a misdirected one.

May the next few days, weeks, months, give, for example, those middle-east representative enough wisdom to put their hatred of each other aside; but for those they represent, the full hatred their have for those who peed and shat on them will be long to forget and extinguish.
A complex problem indeed.

If Gilthalion's decided to walk away from this discussion (as he's suggested in his more recent posts), please let him just walk away. It's very aggravating to have someone try to draw you back into a fight that you've decided to leave (I know, I've been in that situation more than once).

Please.

This isn't my thread, nor Gil's, nor anybody elses in general, unless we agree it is ours collectively.

I do agree with you, JL, that we should respect Gil's decision, and not make direct challenges to him to explain his own personal position anymore.

However, this discussion may very well continue, if it may, by the will of others who want to add their 2 cents, as it was intended to be originally by arynetrek.

As for myself, the raison d`être for my coming back to Entmoot into a big debate, after some absence, has now been accomplished. The harvest was bitter, but I've made clear my intensions in the "Millenium Resolutions" thread. It is not my intention to go on here extensively, although a comment or two I may throw in once in a while.

But upon request, but only then, will I go on finishing my answering to Gil's big post, and then only if it is possible to do so without needing Gil's answers to this in turn, as he did express wishes not to go on further in this. Therefore, if a request is made, my last comments on Gil's big post will only be to explicit or shed light on what I meant, rather than questioning further Gil's opinions.
I don't expect anyone to ask this of me, though, as I guess many others may already be fed up with this thread: how else to explain the absence of furthur participants, which would have been welcomed by me, and I'm sure also by Gil.


Speak up, for if you let others make debates for you, and make decisions for you, and only go voting once in a while, the democratic spirit of our civilization is going away.

Debates, like fevers, are healthy, are a sign of health, even if sometimes they seem to make you sick.

Yeah I quite agree with johnny Lurker tho' I got the feeling that I'm holding Gilthalion back by contradicting him or some thing. That is the last thing I intended to do. It's a personal wish and I'm not going to compel him to stay.
I rather agree with juntel's last line too.

Well, it's hardly my intention to start a new debate (or even to "finish" the old one!

After rereading a lot of the preceding, I see that I was missing some points that should have been clear to me.

No need for further elaborations.

The funny thing is, that upon a critical reading, the conclusions are not so far different, when examined in context. From opposing viewpoints, there is nevertheless a lot of shared opinion about the nature of things.

The only thing I would really want to clarify, for Lorien Wanderer's sake, is that I do not pretend that all of those who've called themselves Christians in the last two millenia have been angels. Even among some who at least tried, there have been dreadful errors, brought about because of the exact kind of insistence upon revealed "truth" or even "self-evident truth" that juntel warns me against.

Even so, my clarification extends to this: MOST Christians are not very Christ-like. That's their choice, but their choices are not, therefore, representative of Christian Faith.

It is fair to call them hypocrites. It is not fair (or accurate) to judge the Christian Faith by their denial of that very Faith. (Capitalizations here to indicate Divine aspects, not archetypical.)

Thanks all (especially Johnny Lurker as peacemaker) for understanding.

Gilthalion: I went back to this thread after the recent arguement over at the Downs on the HP thread. And I have of course, as you did, realized that we were saying the same thing all along. Religion does not make a person who he is. He himself does.

[Coney II]

Who were these guys? These are some of the longest posts I've ever seen!!

[hectorberlioz]

yeah, I was just talking with JD about that.
I wonder how long it took 'em to write those massive things.
they kind of remind me of ents.
"Dont be hasty" .

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney II
Who were these guys? These are some of the longest posts I've ever seen!!

I guess you must have been looking at "who's online" since I was investigating this thread.

They're the old members from ez-board. The only people still on I think are Greg (gdl96) and Tristan (hobbit).

It's like an archelogical find of Entmoot's buried past. Before the new VBulletin society sprung up and the LotR movies came out. It's like looking at history.

[EDIT] Forgot IronParrot is one of the existing members who was one of the original posters in this thread.