OzOne wrote in message ...
On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 05:09:03 GMT, "Maxprop"
scribbled thusly:


"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
CA,

If "The Oz" won't mention the FACT, I will.

I have a real problem calling his voyage a complete voyage when he quit
in the Caribbean. Sold his boat. Went home buy Commercial transport and
called it finished.

Even he felt it was unfinished. He later brought another boat, larger
and better and sailed that back to Calif. I have trouble calling that a
Solo around the world voyage? That is the fact that bothers me. A hell
of a sail BUT:--------?

Splitting hairs, Thom. Most sailors won't take their boats out
single-handed, let along sail 95% of the way around the world alone.

Max


Max,
If you look at it from your POV, I've circumnavigated probably 5
times, probably even done a solo circum, but I'd need to check on from
wher I did each little section..

Nothing at all wrong with that perspective, Oz. As I said most sailors
won't sail single-handed, let alone venture offshore. Records, such as *the
youngest person to solo circumnavigate* require absolute veracity w/r/t
route and absence of passengers. Perhaps Robin L. Graham may not have
earned the record with which he has been associated, but it does not
belittle his effort or accomplishment. Would you have done a solo
circumnavigation in a crappy little boat when you were his age?

Max

My 2 cents Worth:

It's very easy for some to say that religion lays no part in their lives
and that they live good, moral and decent lives because they choose to
do so. The truth of the matter is that the majority of people with
European backgrounds have had centuries of religion pounded into them.
By that fact, anyone now is simply reacting off the virtues of his
forefathers in regards to autonomous goodness. If religion and its'
tenants faded for several ventruies, or abolished altogether for a long
while, eventually the moral climate would change. Natural law would also
change to suit the environment that people live in. What we consider
natural law, not to murder, some sort of fair monogamous.polygamous
relationships, not stealing from those who have nothing, would all go
down the tubes. If the world was overpopulated at that point, natural
law would revert ot kill off the lowest layers, get rid of the
slough...so don't think religion doesn't touch your life just because
you choose not to practice or accept..without it man would survive a
completely different existence.

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.

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.

(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.

just my 2 cents



katy wrote:
My 2 cents Worth:

It's very easy for some to say that religion lays no part in their lives
and that they live good, moral and decent lives because they choose to
do so. The truth of the matter is that the majority of people with
European backgrounds have had centuries of religion pounded into them.
By that fact, anyone now is simply reacting off the virtues of his
forefathers in regards to autonomous goodness. If religion and its'
tenants faded for several ventruies, or abolished altogether for a long
while, eventually the moral climate would change. Natural law would also
change to suit the environment that people live in. What we consider
natural law, not to murder, some sort of fair monogamous.polygamous
relationships, not stealing from those who have nothing, would all go
down the tubes. If the world was overpopulated at that point, natural
law would revert ot kill off the lowest layers, get rid of the
slough...so don't think religion doesn't touch your life just because
you choose not to practice or accept..without it man would survive a
completely different existence.

"Jeff" wrote
just my 2 cents


More like half a mils worth.... You should read *Mere Christianity* by C.S. Lewis.
He explains so well how people have in innate knowledge of right and wrong and how
it's not there by accident. How it can only be there by design. Godly design.


Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
just my 2 cents


More like half a mils worth.... You should read *Mere Christianity* by C.S. Lewis.
He explains so well how people have in innate knowledge of right and wrong and how
it's not there by accident. How it can only be there by design. Godly design.

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

"Jeff" wrote in message
. ..
Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"Jeff" wrote
just my 2 cents


More like half a mils worth.... You should read *Mere Christianity*
by C.S. Lewis.
He explains so well how people have in innate knowledge of right and
wrong and how
it's not there by accident. How it can only be there by design. Godly
design.

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


You've just identified Neal!

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

"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.

Cheers,
Ellen

"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.

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