"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in message
reenews.net...

"Jeff" wrote
Anyone who attempts to "prove" the existence of God obviously has no
faith. Only children and simpletons fall for that approach.

People come about their faith in their own way..... A scientific mind
might find
greater comfort in deriving faith from logical thought processes. Others
just believe
what they're told without thinking about it. They're called liberals.

And those same liberals are the ones who are convinced you and I should also
accept the contention that there is no God. They are unwilling to allow
religious people to have their faith. They're called fascists.

Max

Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
That's a cute story but its really just self-serving pablum. You'd have a
lot of trouble actually proving that, and there's lots of evidence to the
contrary.

Europe had a very stable, peaceful population before the Roman Empire
converted to Christianity. It had a peaceful population before the Roman
Empire. True, there were periodic "empires" that came and went down
through the eons, but for the most part humans have formed peaceable
societies. When there is little population pressure, and modest trade,
there is little "empire building." When empires are created, they
invariably impose order and ethical systems, usually more effectively than
our modern systems.

That's hogwash, Jeff. You couldn't prove your contention no matter how hard
you tried. Religion is the sole historical harbinger of moral behavior,
good or bad--not empire building.

Well, remember I said the religion is constant factor in humanity -
there is really no way to separate it out. People have had "religion"
for eons, and most have moral systems that we would recognize as
"reasonable." So you can always make the claim that religion is
responsible for everything good, and all things bad are caused by
ignoring religion.

However, you specifically claimed that pre-Christian "morality" was
insufficient, "Not much morality in evidence" was your comment. This
is total nonsense. You've completely ignored the thousands of years
of peaceful civilization that preceded the Christian Era.
Mesopotamia, Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome plus others had long periods
peace and prosperity. All had a strong moral systems, "raping,
pillaging, and homicide" were not, as you claim, constant events.

How moral was the feudal system?
Curiously, the feudal system has its foundations in laws passed by
Emperor Constantine at the same time he was laying the groundwork for
Christianity as the state religion.

It was
little more than slavery. Most laws were created to protect royalty and/or
the wealthy. Wealth was created on the backs of the poor and
underpriveleged. Such 'have-nots' were considered expendable, like cattle
or machines.

So you're claiming that all of that ended in the Christian Era? In
fact it was just the opposite - the serfs were originally "coloni" and
had certain rights. As it evolved in the Middle Ages, the "serfs"
(from the Latin for "slave") had few rights.

It wasn't until the Roman Catholic Church and later the
protestant movements came to power that any rights or protections were
afforded the 'have-nots,' and even that took centuries.

So that's why the Catholic Church protected the rights of the
Native-Americans.

The US Colonies
were far less barbaric than early Europe, primarily due to imported European
Christian moral foundations,

You seem to be ignoring that fact that half of the colonial economy
was based on brutal slavery. It was so much a part of our society
that it was endorsed by our Constitution. And the Caribbean slavery
was even worse.

but it took the combined efforts of such groups
as the Quakers and other prospering religions to finally convince the
fledgling country that salvery was immoral.

Are you really suggesting Quakers are the exemplars of organized
Christian religion??? If all Christians were Quakers I don't think we
would be having this discussion.

And what if Martin L. King has
advocated a bloody racial war, as opposed to his Christian-based movement of
peaceful resistance?

So are you claiming that if King had been a cleric of an African
religion he would have advocating "raping, pillaging, and homicide" of
the Christians??? Can you see how racist that sounds?


What is even more amusing in all this is my undergrad European history
teacher, *an atheist*, who taught his in classes that the influence of
religion in Europe was the "sole impetus" for morality.

By one definition, "morality" is a sense of right and wrong based on
religion, while "ethics" is the same sense but based on the concept
that an orderly society serves everyone best. Using this definition,
religion *is* the impetus for morality, by definition!

Also, as I've said, religion is/was always there. But modern
Christian writers have a tendency to downplay the role of any religion
perceived as "pagan."

He didn't believe
in the existence of a diety, but he did attribute moral evolution to the
existence of religious groups and dogma. So did the texts his courses
required. It's a relatively recent anti-religious (anti-religious
right-wing) movement that is attempting to re-write history based on
unsupported hypotheses.

Re-write? Are you claiming the great empires didn't exist? Or that
chaos ruled the world until Constantine?


snip stuff where we largely agree

However, not all religions are the same. While most are accepting of
other religions, a few are insistent that their particular "path to
salvation" is the only viable one, and that everyone else is an infidel.

This becomes a religious foundation for conquest and colonization. The
two major proponents of this are Christianity and Islam. The global war
we seem to be on the verge of is a natural consequence of the "morality"
of these two religions.

You're probably right. The history of the world is rife with wars of
religious foment.

So what's the solution? Should we abandon the Judeo-Christian morality on
which this country was founded?

No - we should abandon the concept that our version is better than
anyone else's.

Should the Islamic countries abandon their
"morality?"

No - they should abandon the concept that their version is better than
anyone else's.

Whenever I hear someone claim they must "accept this or that as the
only path to salvation" I am offended. It is the work of the Devil!

My personal take is that the two moralities are fundamentally
incompatible and we should stay the hell out of the Islamic world.

Certainly sending our army hasn't helped...

We
should also find a means to replace the energy requirements obtained from
the Middle East in order to be free of any involvement there. But no one's
listening to me.

Bush certainly isn't.

"Jeff" wrote
Whenever I hear someone claim they must "accept this or that as the only path to salvation" I am offended. It is the
work of the Devil!


Jesus said exactly what you said up there offends you. Your saying Jesus is the work of the devil?
My oh my. Heaven help you, Jeff.
You must accept his offer-God's offer-or you'll not have everlasting life. Jesus lived. He died. He
came back to life. He did this after telling people he would do it and how he would do it. It that's not
proof enough he's God then may God have mercy on your soul....

Cheers,
Ellen

Max,

I truly don't have a clue to the answer of God, Faith, Morality but from
just observing our world and everything around us, Religion isn't the
answer.

Humans are the only species on the Planet that have churches. Humans are
the only species that have Wars. Humans are the only species that build
weapons and develop ways to use them to destroy.

Max, Humans and animals populated this planet without Religion, without
Sin and without Churches.

It plain to see that animals have no problem surviving without religion
or our, so called "Civilization" Man's problem is MAN. Man's creation
of his version on God is where Evil came from.

I haven't an answer but it obvious our Religion doesn't either!

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ILLDRINKTOTHAT

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 11:36:43 -0500, Ellen MacArthur wrote
(in article ews.net):


"Jeff" wrote
Whenever I hear someone claim they must "accept this or that as the only
path to salvation" I am offended. It is the
work of the Devil!


Jesus said exactly what you said up there offends you. Your saying
Jesus is the work of the devil?
My oh my. Heaven help you, Jeff.
You must accept his offer-God's offer-or you'll not have everlasting
life. Jesus lived. He died. He
came back to life. He did this after telling people he would do it and how he

would do it. It that's not
proof enough he's God then may God have mercy on your soul....

Cheers,
Ellen



For someone who bases everything on fact you sure leave your self dangling
with lots of hope...good luck with that.

--
Mundo, The Captain who is a bully and an ass

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
Whenever I hear someone claim they must "accept this or that as the only path to salvation" I am offended. It is the
work of the Devil!


Jesus said exactly what you said up there offends you.

You have absolutely no idea what Jesus actually said. You only have
the myth and rumor that was written down at least 30-40 years after
the fact.

Your saying Jesus is the work of the devil?

Jesus was probably a reasonable guy. Many people have added layers to
his teachings, some reasonable, some not.

Its the misguided people who insist that their version is the only
path for everyone that are doing a disservice to his memory.

My oh my. Heaven help you, Jeff.
You must accept his offer-God's offer-or you'll not have everlasting life. Jesus lived. He died. He
came back to life. He did this after telling people he would do it and how he would do it. It that's not
proof enough he's God then may God have mercy on your soul...

You've just proven my point.

"Maxprop" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
That's a cute story but its really just self-serving pablum. You'd have
a lot of trouble actually proving that, and there's lots of evidence to
the contrary.

Europe had a very stable, peaceful population before the Roman Empire
converted to Christianity. It had a peaceful population before the Roman
Empire. True, there were periodic "empires" that came and went down
through the eons, but for the most part humans have formed peaceable
societies. When there is little population pressure, and modest trade,
there is little "empire building." When empires are created, they
invariably impose order and ethical systems, usually more effectively
than our modern systems.

That's hogwash, Jeff. You couldn't prove your contention no matter how
hard you tried. Religion is the sole historical harbinger of moral
behavior, good or bad--not empire building. How moral was the feudal
system? It was little more than slavery. Most laws were created to
protect royalty and/or the wealthy. Wealth was created on the backs of
the poor and underpriveleged. Such 'have-nots' were considered
expendable, like cattle or machines. It wasn't until the Roman Catholic
Church and later the protestant movements came to power that any rights or
protections were afforded the 'have-nots,' and even that took centuries.
The US Colonies were far less barbaric than early Europe, primarily due to
imported European Christian moral foundations, but it took the combined
efforts of such groups as the Quakers and other prospering religions to
finally convince the fledgling country that salvery was immoral. And what
if Martin L. King has advocated a bloody racial war, as opposed to his
Christian-based movement of peaceful resistance?

What is even more amusing in all this is my undergrad European history
teacher, *an atheist*, who taught his in classes that the influence of
religion in Europe was the "sole impetus" for morality. He didn't believe
in the existence of a diety, but he did attribute moral evolution to the
existence of religious groups and dogma. So did the texts his courses
required. It's a relatively recent anti-religious (anti-religious
right-wing) movement that is attempting to re-write history based on
unsupported hypotheses.

Moreover, it *is* the "Natural Law" of humans to form religions with
associated ethical systems. Virtually all human groups around the world
have formed their own religion - its one of the constants of humanity. I
don't believe this in any way "proves" the existence of God, but it does
mean that every culture has its own version of morality.

That supports Katy's and my argument. As to your last sentence, nothing
will ever prove the existence of God. Belief is an act of faith, not
scientific proof.

(As an aside, I also think that within any group there will be those who
need to believe in God, and would make one up if a suitable one did not
exist in their culture, and there are those who would never accept it.
Thus there will always be fundamentalists and atheists among us; in fact
you'd find some of each at any religious gathering! Just human nature.)

However, not all religions are the same. While most are accepting of
other religions, a few are insistent that their particular "path to
salvation" is the only viable one, and that everyone else is an infidel.

This becomes a religious foundation for conquest and colonization. The
two major proponents of this are Christianity and Islam. The global war
we seem to be on the verge of is a natural consequence of the "morality"
of these two religions.

You're probably right. The history of the world is rife with wars of
religious foment.

So what's the solution? Should we abandon the Judeo-Christian morality on
which this country was founded? Should the Islamic countries abandon
their "morality?" My personal take is that the two moralities are
fundamentally incompatible and we should stay the hell out of the Islamic
world. We should also find a means to replace the energy requirements
obtained from the Middle East in order to be free of any involvement
there. But no one's listening to me.



You're leaving out one important point... please define "moral" behavior.

That's the nub of the problem.

You said, "Religion is sole historical harbinger of moral behavior." It's
just as easy to argue that economic incentive was so.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jeff" wrote
You have absolutely no idea what Jesus actually said. You only have the myth and rumor that was written down at least
30-40 years after the fact.

Wrong! You don't have to hear somebody say something for it to be true.
I never heard Kennedy say, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what
you can do for your country." But I know he said it. There's historical records and
probably video tapes. But they can be faked. You can believe or not believe.
The Bible is an historical record. It's based on what people did and what people saw.
There's no reason to call Jesus and his followers liars just because you weren't there.
That's dumb, Jeff, dumb! Before there was writing there was oral tradition. People
were in charge of telling history. It was passed down from generation to generation.
American indians did it that way. It doesn't make it false.

Jesus was probably a reasonable guy. Many people have added layers to his teachings, some reasonable, some not.

The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all added the same layers?
Fascinating.... Prophesy come true written hundreds of years prior to Jesus even
being born was people adding layers. Incredible... Oh, and Jesus was a guy but he
was also God. But, he was anything but reasonable. He said it's his way or you never
have eternal life. I believe him. There's nothing to lose by believing him and everything
to gain.

You've just proven my point.

No sweat. It's easy to prove your ignorant, Jeff.

Cheers,
Ellen

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Maxprop wrote:
"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
That's a cute story but its really just self-serving pablum. You'd have
a lot of trouble actually proving that, and there's lots of evidence to
the contrary.

Europe had a very stable, peaceful population before the Roman Empire
converted to Christianity. It had a peaceful population before the
Roman Empire. True, there were periodic "empires" that came and went
down through the eons, but for the most part humans have formed
peaceable societies. When there is little population pressure, and
modest trade, there is little "empire building." When empires are
created, they invariably impose order and ethical systems, usually more
effectively than our modern systems.

That's hogwash, Jeff. You couldn't prove your contention no matter how
hard you tried. Religion is the sole historical harbinger of moral
behavior, good or bad--not empire building.

Well, remember I said the religion is constant factor in humanity - there
is really no way to separate it out. People have had "religion" for eons,
and most have moral systems that we would recognize as "reasonable." So
you can always make the claim that religion is responsible for everything
good, and all things bad are caused by ignoring religion.

I'd never make that claim. Dispite Katy's claim to the contrary, I doubt if
ignoring religion at this stage of the evolution of human endeavor would
result in chaos and depravity. The fundamental concepts of morality brought
about by western religions over the centuries are as much a part of the
fabric of Europeans and Americans (including N, S, Central, etc.) as any
other aspects of our lives. It isn't likely to disappear overnight, nor
over the next few centuries. Of course Christianity isn't likely to
disappear either, so the point is moot.

However, you specifically claimed that pre-Christian "morality" was
insufficient, "Not much morality in evidence" was your comment. This is
total nonsense. You've completely ignored the thousands of years of
peaceful civilization that preceded the Christian Era. Mesopotamia, Egypt,
Persia, Greece, Rome plus others had long periods peace and prosperity.
All had a strong moral systems, "raping, pillaging, and homicide" were
not, as you claim, constant events.

Is peace the only measure of morality in your vernacular? China had lengthy
periods of prosperity and peace, but state executions were as common as
births in many of the early dynasties. So were punitive slavery, innate
servitude, and religious sacrifice. China, to this day, has been at peace
with most of its neighbors for quite a while, but their version of morality
would be considered barbaric in many respects by western cultures. China
has never embraced Christianity, and only recently--within the last century
or so--tolerated it with a strong admonition of discouragement.

How moral was the feudal system?

Curiously, the feudal system has its foundations in laws passed by Emperor
Constantine at the same time he was laying the groundwork for Christianity
as the state religion.

Christianity didn't affect the current iteration of morality from its
inception. The Crusades were evidence of that. Morality evolved from
Christian ideology, and it took time. Lots of time. It continues to
evolve. Witness the changes in this country, from slavery to the relative
egalitarianism of today.

It was little more than slavery. Most laws were created to protect
royalty and/or the wealthy. Wealth was created on the backs of the poor
and underpriveleged. Such 'have-nots' were considered expendable, like
cattle or machines.

So you're claiming that all of that ended in the Christian Era? In fact
it was just the opposite - the serfs were originally "coloni" and had
certain rights. As it evolved in the Middle Ages, the "serfs" (from the
Latin for "slave") had few rights.

The evolution of morality is not a straight-line, upward slope. There are
always setbacks to any evolving philosophy. Witness some of the exceptions
mentioned by Popeye. This is not a perfect world, but it is strongly
improved by morality brought about, primarily, by western religion. And it
continues to evolve.


It wasn't until the Roman Catholic Church and later the protestant
movements came to power that any rights or protections were afforded the
'have-nots,' and even that took centuries.

So that's why the Catholic Church protected the rights of the
Native-Americans.

The US Colonies were far less barbaric than early Europe, primarily due
to imported European
Christian moral foundations,

You seem to be ignoring that fact that half of the colonial economy was
based on brutal slavery. It was so much a part of our society that it was
endorsed by our Constitution. And the Caribbean slavery was even worse.

You obviously didn't read on before making that statement.


but it took the combined efforts of such groups as the Quakers and other
prospering religions to finally convince the fledgling country that
salvery was immoral.

Are you really suggesting Quakers are the exemplars of organized Christian
religion??? If all Christians were Quakers I don't think we would be
having this discussion.

Did I imply that? Re-read my statement. Or did you miss the "and other
prospering religions" part of my statement? But I am curious--what is your
take on Quakers? Their sense of morality is beyond reproach, at least from
what I've learned about them.

And what if Martin L. King has advocated a bloody racial war, as opposed
to his Christian-based movement of peaceful resistance?

So are you claiming that if King had been a cleric of an African religion
he would have advocating "raping, pillaging, and homicide" of the
Christians??? Can you see how racist that sounds?

Not at all--I have no idea where you came up with that. I was implying that
if King had been a secular anarchist, not unlike Bob Seale of the Black
Panther Party, and had held the same level of influence, the outcome of his
movement might have been radically different. Racial civil war comes to
mind. Fortunately Bobby Seale was far less influential. And there's
nothing racist about that. Do some study of the early Black Panthers.
Their manifesto was quite clear, at least that which hasn't been subjected
to the left-wing historical revisionists attempting to improve his image.


What is even more amusing in all this is my undergrad European history
teacher, *an atheist*, who taught his in classes that the influence of
religion in Europe was the "sole impetus" for morality.

By one definition, "morality" is a sense of right and wrong based on
religion, while "ethics" is the same sense but based on the concept that
an orderly society serves everyone best. Using this definition, religion
*is* the impetus for morality, by definition!

You seem to imply that ethics and morality are mutually exclusive. They
aren't. Not unless your version of ethical behavior extends to, for
example, the systematic elimination of genetically inferior individuals
(Downs, CF, CP, etc.) in order to serve the remainder of an orderly society
best. Without morality, ethics are merely a society's interpretation of
what is best for the masses. The Vikings had such "ethics."

Also, as I've said, religion is/was always there. But modern Christian
writers have a tendency to downplay the role of any religion perceived as
"pagan."

Yes, they do. And that is Christian bias, plain and simple, but still fails
to refute the influence of modern western religions upon morality. For
example, I'm unaware of the practice of human sacrifice in modern
Christianity.

He didn't believe in the existence of a diety, but he did attribute moral
evolution to the existence of religious groups and dogma. So did the
texts his courses required. It's a relatively recent anti-religious
(anti-religious right-wing) movement that is attempting to re-write
history based on unsupported hypotheses.

Re-write? Are you claiming the great empires didn't exist?

That would be asinine. They did exist, but were they moral in the modern
sense? Did Caligula possess a strong belief in the rights of individuals?

Or that chaos ruled the world until Constantine?

Chaos did rule the much of the world prior to Constatine. And it still
rules various parts of the world. Somalia comes to mind.


snip stuff where we largely agree

You're probably right. The history of the world is rife with wars of
religious foment.

So what's the solution? Should we abandon the Judeo-Christian morality
on which this country was founded?


No - we should abandon the concept that our version is better than anyone
else's.

I couldn't agree more, at least w/r/t the needs and beliefs of various
peoples and societies. I would not make a very good Christian with such a
belief, but I still contend that Christianity has led to a better world in
the final analysis. The fundamentals of our Constitution are based upon
Christianity. Have you taken a close look at the differences between Iraq's
new constitution and ours. You might be shocked at some of the disparities.
Have you read the Qu'ran? That's a real eye-opener as well.

Should the Islamic countries abandon their "morality?"

No - they should abandon the concept that their version is better than
anyone else's.

See above.

Whenever I hear someone claim they must "accept this or that as the only
path to salvation" I am offended. It is the work of the Devil!

To believe in the Devil implies that you also believe in God. Do you? Just
curious.


My personal take is that the two moralities are fundamentally
incompatible and we should stay the hell out of the Islamic world.

Certainly sending our army hasn't helped...

Nope. I hope we aren't doomed to repeat that redundant mistake, but I fear
future leaders will do exactly that. Oil seems to be the catalyst.


We should also find a means to replace the energy requirements obtained
from the Middle East in order to be free of any involvement there. But
no one's listening to me.

Bush certainly isn't.

No one is. Not even the Democrats. Al Gore, maybe, but no one else. We
obtain less than 11% of our total crude requirements from the Middle East.
Brazil is totally independent of foreign oil as of last year. If a smallish
country such as Brazil can accomplish that, we certainly should be able to
wean ourselves from Mideastern crude. And alternative energy sources aren't
being exploited to any significant degree. Of course a Big Oil hit-man will
probably be paying me a surprise visit over the next few days. g

Max

"Mundo" wrote in message

For someone who bases everything on fact you sure leave your self dangling
with lots of hope...good luck with that.

That's pretty much a definition of *faith.* Are you implying that you never
do anything on faith? Do you take risks? Or do you live such a monastic
(definition #2) lifestyle that nothing can bring harm to you?

Max