"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

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

"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

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:46:31 -0500, Maxprop wrote
(in article . net):


"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



Quite the opposite. The post however was focused towards Neil who forever
quotes and stands behind "fact" yet seems to be able to go baseless into gut
feelings, the realm of god and heaven. Pure faith. No Fact. He is an enigma.

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

"Mundo" wrote in message
. net...
On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 14:46:31 -0500, Maxprop wrote
(in article . net):


"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



Quite the opposite. The post however was focused towards Neil who forever
quotes and stands behind "fact" yet seems to be able to go baseless into
gut
feelings, the realm of god and heaven. Pure faith. No Fact. He is an
enigma.

There is little or no fact where religion is concerned. Only faith. If
you're waiting for a Christian to provide evidence (facts) of God, you're in
for a long wait. But you are of course right--to a Christian, his belief
*is* fact. That's part and parcel of the faith business.

Max

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.

"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

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"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.

It doesn't make it literally true, either. It was common practice in
Greek history to completely make up speeches and dialog. The Greeks
(that is, the educated Romans in the Eastern Mediterranean) would
never have guessed that the Gospels were were the actual spoken words
of Jesus.



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?

Duh! Have you not read the Gospels?

Fascinating.... Prophesy come true written hundreds of years prior to Jesus even
being born was people adding layers. Incredible...

Odd, these "prophesies" were mostly not considered prophetic by the
people who made them. The early Christians had a small industry going
in trying to show that they were the "fulfillment" of the Jewish
destiny. That way, they would inherit the benefits that Jews had, as
an "Ancient Religion" in the Roman Empire. This was evident in the
letters of Paul, which were written before the Gospels (except
possibly Mark). Its pretty clear that much of the New Testament was
written to appear as fulfillment.

But, believe what you must.

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're certainly entitled to your beliefs. But you really should
study your sacred texts a bit. That way, you might not sound like a
little child parroting the comments of her Sunday School teacher.