Herodotus wrote in
:

How about we all try to show a bit of common sense.

I thank God that I travel under the New Zealand flag. We have no
enemies and what little people know of us gives us a good reception.

Anyway, this is way off topic.

regards
Peter



Peter, have you ever read about the USS Liberty from the first-hand
reports of her crew in 1967? Take a look if you haven't....

http://www.gtr5.com/

Liberty was a spy ship sent to Israel to be sunk by them and blamed on
Egypt so the false flaggers could drag the US military into the 6-day
war to do Isreal's bidding. The valiant efforts of the captain and crew
of Liberty saved the ship and thwarted the plans of US Zionists by
keeping her afloat, at which time a cover story had to appear that she
was mistaken for an Egyptian horse carrier that had no resemblence,
whatsoever, to a US Navy spy ship bristling with hundreds of antennas
over her superstructure.

Hearing frantic calls from Liberty, the Sixth Fleet commander sent his
jets to save Liberty and her crew from the Israeli attacks, TWICE! Each
time, he was ORDERED by the highest levels of the Pentagram and White
House to recall the jets as that would have ruined the plan to drag us
into another war to the delight of our Federal Reserve bankers.

By the way, I'm a former Christian, having been dragged into it by
parents and adults since birth. I'm a practicing Atheist, today. There
is no "god" and has never been one. Human superstitions run rampant
throughout our history without a single shred of evidence to
substantiate any of it. Those who live off superstitions make damned
sure noone asks too many embarrassing questions like when was Christ
born and when did it supposedly die. They don't like to talk about the
following 70 years when not a single historian wrote a single sentence
about such a man who could walk on water, heal the sick waving his hand
and raise the dead. I find that quite curious, don't you? The myth of
Jesus Christ came 3000 years after the same exact story of Horus in
verifiable Egyptian stone hyeroglyphics at Luxor, another of the
Zodiacal Sun Gods in a long string of Zodiacal Sun Gods. American
Christians get mad if you ask them what that fish symbol and cross on
the back of their minivans represents, having no idea of its Zodiac base
in the age of Pisces and the shorthand cross of the Zodiac they took the
ring off of many centuries ago...

It will be a personal shame I cannot be here when the Procession of the
Zodiac passes from Pisces into the Age of Aquarius around 2150 to see
the looks on their faces when nothing happens, except in their minds....

There are some great videos on YouTube you may find enlightening:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Mzciu8HvfwA
Zeitgeist - The Movie....watch all 13 parts on YouTube. One whole
section is about using religion to enslave us.

Root of all Evil by Richard Dawkins
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X2epvSAGuLc
Professor Dawkins' view that forcing children into their parent's
superstitions is child abuse. Having been a victim, I heartily agree.

It's a crazy world we live in. Over 5000 humans die each DAY in the
name of one religion or another. How absurd. No wonder we're hell bent
on destroying the whole race as fast as possible.

Peter, have you ever read about the USS Liberty from the first-hand
reports of her crew in 1967? Take a look if you haven't....

Hi Larry,
Yes. It happened during my first year of university and I remember
watching special reports from the non-aligned networks. It was rather
obvious to all what had been going on. Which brings to mind the
sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbor (spelled that way for Bruce's
sake) in 1898 as a prelude to taking over many of the Spanish colonial
possessions such as the Philippines and converting them to American
colonial possessions.


By the way, I'm a former Christian, having been dragged into it by
parents and adults since birth. I'm a practicing Atheist, today. There
is no "god" and has never been one. Human superstitions run rampant
throughout our history without a single shred of evidence to
substantiate any of it. Those who live off superstitions make damned
sure noone asks too many embarrassing questions like when was Christ
born and when did it supposedly die. They don't like to talk about the
following 70 years when not a single historian wrote a single sentence
about such a man who could walk on water, heal the sick waving his hand
and raise the dead. I find that quite curious, don't you? The myth of
Jesus Christ came 3000 years after the same exact story of Horus in
verifiable Egyptian stone hyeroglyphics at Luxor, another of the
Zodiacal Sun Gods in a long string of Zodiacal Sun Gods. American
Christians get mad if you ask them what that fish symbol and cross on
the back of their minivans represents, having no idea of its Zodiac base
in the age of Pisces and the shorthand cross of the Zodiac they took the
ring off of many centuries ago...


In many ways I agree with you and personally do not know if there is a
God as such. It doesn't really matter at all to me. Prayer can be seen
as a means of talking to one's inner self, otherwise we do so little
introspection in our busy lives. It all depends on how you define or
visualise God which is different for all of us. Could be an
anthropomorphic bearded Michael- Angelo figure sitting on a throne or
a cloud or could be merely the life force which we are all part of.
There is also the need many people feel of having some path to follow
and a guide to living a good life. A boyhood friend of mine who is a
Catholic priest says that if simple people did not have statues of
saints to pray before, they would find it difficult to focus.

I have read the Bible (at a religous Christian boarding school) and
for me, there is some wonderful wisdom at times in that book as there
is in the Koran and in Bhuddist sutras; as there is in some of
Shakespear's sonnets and other poems. I spent a year in Kyoto many
years ago and can still vividly recall some of the Haiku poems I
learned such as the words that spring to mind when I see places where
thousands died in war - pointlessly in the long run.

"Of twenty thousand warriors life and sword and shield
Naught hath remained but the summer grass
Growing over the old battlefield'

It is a religous poem witten by a famous Bhuddist monk.

As for Christian symbolism, I could wax eloquent about such as the
misinterpretation of the Greek word kourae (young girl) for 'virgin',
the fact the Jesus died on a stake (word used is Greek "stauros' - the
cross came in 320 years later as a former symbol of the Roman Sol
Invicta - the sun God). I could go on for days in a like manner but to
do so would be pointless as far as I am concerned as it is the message
that should be the most important point of focus and what Christ said
is some pretty impressive advice for living in many ways.

Ok. It was basically from the mysticism of the Essenes who existed at
the same time but regardless, it is good advice to ponder upon.

I think that to more understand Jesus and his message one should
examine it in the scope of the times he lived. He may or may not have
been divine - thousands of people have died over that question -
Nestorians, Albigensians, Arrians etc. - but just look at the message.
Loving thy neighbour as thyself is not a bad way to treat your fellow
man.

My God, I sound like a Bible Belter!!

Here endeth the lesson!


Root of all Evil by Richard Dawkins
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X2epvSAGuLc
Professor Dawkins' view that forcing children into their parent's
superstitions is child abuse. Having been a victim, I heartily agree.

Yes, but the strange thing is that young people are now flocking back
to the banners of the various churches even though their parents
didn't have any religious beliefs. It's as if there is the need for
that certain something that will make sense of it all that resides
deep inside us all.

Besides Dawkins is a bit one eyed and seems to have a basic inviolate
view of what the "God" he denies is. He may be right.

Have you ever nursed someone who is dieing? I have. Amazing how they
"find God" when they spent their lives as atheists.

As for the afterlife. To hell with it! I don't want to go to heaven
and be attended by umpteen virgins. I'm sick of women at present. I
want to be reincarnated as a tablecloth. At least I'd` get laid three
times a day with narry a woman in sight. If some of the people I have
met who believe that they are going upstairs get there, I for one
certainly don't want to spend time in their company. They are just
bloody boring.

cheers
Peter

It's a crazy world we live in. Over 5000 humans die each DAY in the
name of one religion or another. How absurd. No wonder we're hell bent
on destroying the whole race as fast as possible.

Herodotus wrote in
:

there is some wonderful wisdom at times in that book as there
is in the Koran

I bought an Enlish translation of the Koran in a bookshop in the Souk in
Manama, Bahrain. It was translated by a moslem in India in the 1920's and
has been reprinted ever since. The Indian publisher uses terribly
primitive publishing equipment and it shows. The cover is made by hand!

I learned not to read it where any Bahrainis could see me in short order to
keep the lectures to a minimum. Showing an interest, they can go on for
hours...(c; I find it terribly disturbing with so many gory instructions
about cutting off various body parts, outright genocide or at least
murders, and I can see why there is so much blood associated with Islam
like the stonings of half buried people in Iran (youtube has the videos).

No thanks. Mankind needs to shed itself of these killing fields caused by
religions. I find it quite comforting to know that when I die, I simply
don't exist any more and can be soon forgotten, like the billions before
me, recycled into more life by natural selection. I don't have to
"prepare" for death at all. I'm leaving that to someone else's problems...
(c;

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:01:20 +0000, Larry wrote:

Herodotus wrote in
:

there is some wonderful wisdom at times in that book as there
is in the Koran

I bought an Enlish translation of the Koran in a bookshop in the Souk in
Manama, Bahrain. It was translated by a moslem in India in the 1920's and
has been reprinted ever since. The Indian publisher uses terribly
primitive publishing equipment and it shows. The cover is made by hand!

I learned not to read it where any Bahrainis could see me in short order to
keep the lectures to a minimum. Showing an interest, they can go on for
hours...(c; I find it terribly disturbing with so many gory instructions
about cutting off various body parts, outright genocide or at least
murders, and I can see why there is so much blood associated with Islam
like the stonings of half buried people in Iran (youtube has the videos).

No thanks. Mankind needs to shed itself of these killing fields caused by
religions. I find it quite comforting to know that when I die, I simply
don't exist any more and can be soon forgotten, like the billions before
me, recycled into more life by natural selection. I don't have to
"prepare" for death at all. I'm leaving that to someone else's problems...
(c;

The problem in imagining a religionless history is considering how
much worse such a history would be.
Leaving aside religions' excesses - and there is every reason to
suppose those excesses would be greater without the constraints of
religion-imposed "morality"- what motivations toward "good" can you
point to that are not sourced in the tenets of a religion?
You can't.
There is no profit in bemoaning history. We are its final product.
History is best used to refine our movement forward.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:01:20 +0000, Larry wrote:

Herodotus wrote in
m:

there is some wonderful wisdom at times in that book as there
is in the Koran

I bought an Enlish translation of the Koran in a bookshop in the Souk in
Manama, Bahrain. It was translated by a moslem in India in the 1920's and
has been reprinted ever since. The Indian publisher uses terribly
primitive publishing equipment and it shows. The cover is made by hand!

I learned not to read it where any Bahrainis could see me in short order
to
keep the lectures to a minimum. Showing an interest, they can go on for
hours...(c; I find it terribly disturbing with so many gory instructions
about cutting off various body parts, outright genocide or at least
murders, and I can see why there is so much blood associated with Islam
like the stonings of half buried people in Iran (youtube has the videos).

No thanks. Mankind needs to shed itself of these killing fields caused by
religions. I find it quite comforting to know that when I die, I simply
don't exist any more and can be soon forgotten, like the billions before
me, recycled into more life by natural selection. I don't have to
"prepare" for death at all. I'm leaving that to someone else's
problems...
(c;

The problem in imagining a religionless history is considering how
much worse such a history would be.
Leaving aside religions' excesses - and there is every reason to
suppose those excesses would be greater without the constraints of
religion-imposed "morality"- what motivations toward "good" can you
point to that are not sourced in the tenets of a religion?
You can't.
There is no profit in bemoaning history. We are its final product.
History is best used to refine our movement forward.

--Vic


I disagree. You can only guess at what a religionless history would have
been like.

Morality via religion breeds behavior that is covered up by the officials
and participants of the religion. Look at Major and minor religions - bad
medicine (literally), priests abusing kids, "holy wars" throughout history.
Look at communism - arguably a state-sponsored religion, no good can be
found beyond the theory, which doesn't work in practice. Look at
capitalism - reasonably ok, as long as it is constrained by the "public
good" interest (however you define it), not socialism (which is really a
nanny state), but enlightened self-interest, where gov't nudges itself and
its citizens toward the public good based on facts not faith.

I would point to science, lead by intelligent, caring people who are
generally non-sectarian or can at least separate themselves from their faith
beliefs. Some have claimed that science (or math) is a religion, which I'll
allow, but it's based on hypothesis
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypothesis) vs. conjecture
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conjecture) or faith
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...=&o3=&h= 0000)
(aka Intelligent Design).


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

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:55:42 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:



I disagree. You can only guess at what a religionless history would have
been like.

Yes, I agree.

--Vic

capitalism - reasonably ok, as long as it is constrained by the "public
good" interest (however you define it), not socialism (which is really a
nanny state), but enlightened self-interest, where gov't nudges itself and
its citizens toward the public good based on facts not faith.

I disagree about your "nanny states' having been raised and nurtured
by one, as compared to your capitalism as is practicised nowadays in
the USA which seems not to be constrained by the "public good" but
where big business combined with political self serving has led to a
recession as you are currently entering.

Capitalism is good, agreed, but it must have some regulatory
constraints other than market forces. The social cost is too high
otherwise. This has been belatedly recognised by the previously
Communiist regimes.

Also, regardless of people's denial of a "God", each still has his own
"religion" which could be defined as a set of tenets, moral values,
beliefs and understanding as to one's place in the universe. Atheism
has also been described as a religion.

I would point to science, lead by intelligent, caring people who are
generally non-sectarian or can at least separate themselves from their faith
beliefs. Some have claimed that science (or math) is a religion, which I'll
allow, but it's based on hypothesis
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypothesis) vs. conjecture
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conjecture) or faith
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...=&o3=&h= 0000)
(aka Intelligent Design).

What part of science do you point to? Proven science (which is not a
hypothesis by the way) and the true spirit and freedom of intellectual
pursuit and discovery or the pseudo-science of the religious right
who, when barred by a constitutional ruling to teach Intelligent
Design in US schools have gotten around in in such as the state of
Louisiana by the devious means of the state's proposed Science
Education Act.

This Act is designed to slip Intelligent design in through the back
door. "Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand,
analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific
theories pertinent to the course being taught" The idea that evolution
has weaknesses and is therefore not a solid theory is a recurring
theme in ID literature.

I attended such a religious right boarding school in New Zealand. The
science teacher explained "We are forced to teach the THEORY of
Evolution by the curriculum. However, you all know that we don't
believe it" and went on to teach evolutionary theory in a ridiculous
manner that was so transparent I felt compelled to get some books on
it from the town library.

Evolution is not a theory. It is an established fact. There is
absolutely no reason either, that you cannot uncompromisingly combine
religious feelings with a belief in scientific knowledge. I had a
genetics and evolution professor at university who was a Presbytarian
deaconess. When I asked her if there was any conflict, she replied
"The more I learn about science, the more it reinforces my belief in
God" I now understand what she meant. It all depends on your personal
concept of God.

The "facts" of the book of Genesis were written down for the first
time in the time of King Hezekiah, over 800 years from when Moses
died. It was only in 1844 that a rather scholarly and widely read book
was published describing dinosaur bones having been formed by
"plastic force" and inspired by Satan to lead us astray. If I recall,
the author was one "Werner".

Sorry, I get carried away on this subject as I can see a new dark age
controlled by conservative religious fundamentalists fast coming upon
us. A major recession, huge unemployment and a couple of wars is all
that it will take. Raw capitalism is not serving us all that well it
seems by current economic events.

JC, I do agree that it would be great if society was controlled by
rational thinking scientists. However, human nature being what it is
and has always been, self serving politicians will arise and take back
control, even be it from behind the throne. Also, scientists are not
divorced from ego, selfishness, greed and all the other human
frailities. It just would not work unfortunately. I can give you
concrete examples of where scientists whose decision on, for example,
sustainable fisheries quotas, have sold out to business for personal
gain. They are not evil men but it is surprising easy to overstate
your projections in someone's favour when they offer you a high paying
job "if you ever think of leaving the Government". Asd a result these
fisheries such as the deep sea Orange Roughie have totally collapsed.

As for science. How many of your politicians (or mine) could give you
a tolerable account of the science behind global warming, climate
change, evolution and such? Very few indeed but they are being asked
to legislate for your country's benefit and survival. You have given
them that power to decide on your future.

Grossly Off topic but interesting,

regards
Peter

"Herodotus" wrote in message
...


capitalism - reasonably ok, as long as it is constrained by the "public
good" interest (however you define it), not socialism (which is really a
nanny state), but enlightened self-interest, where gov't nudges itself and
its citizens toward the public good based on facts not faith.

I disagree about your "nanny states' having been raised and nurtured
by one, as compared to your capitalism as is practicised nowadays in
the USA which seems not to be constrained by the "public good" but
where big business combined with political self serving has led to a
recession as you are currently entering.

I am not making any claim that "our" capitalism is properly constrained. I'm
saying that it should be. Clearly (or at least from my perspective) it is
not and should be.

Capitalism is good, agreed, but it must have some regulatory
constraints other than market forces. The social cost is too high
otherwise. This has been belatedly recognised by the previously
Communiist regimes.

No argument here.

Also, regardless of people's denial of a "God", each still has his own
"religion" which could be defined as a set of tenets, moral values,
beliefs and understanding as to one's place in the universe. Atheism
has also been described as a religion.

Someone's individual belief is not what concerns me. It's the religious
order that imposes ritual and dogma.

I would point to science, lead by intelligent, caring people who are
generally non-sectarian or can at least separate themselves from their
faith
beliefs. Some have claimed that science (or math) is a religion, which
I'll
allow, but it's based on hypothesis
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=hypothesis) vs. conjecture
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conjecture) or faith
(http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/we...=&o3=&h= 0000)
(aka Intelligent Design).

What part of science do you point to? Proven science (which is not a
hypothesis by the way) and the true spirit and freedom of intellectual
pursuit and discovery or the pseudo-science of the religious right
who, when barred by a constitutional ruling to teach Intelligent
Design in US schools have gotten around in in such as the state of
Louisiana by the devious means of the state's proposed Science
Education Act.

Scientific Method is a good start.

This Act is designed to slip Intelligent design in through the back
door. "Teachers shall be permitted to help students understand,
analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific
theories pertinent to the course being taught" The idea that evolution
has weaknesses and is therefore not a solid theory is a recurring
theme in ID literature.

Well, screw them. I'm not buying.

I attended such a religious right boarding school in New Zealand. The
science teacher explained "We are forced to teach the THEORY of
Evolution by the curriculum. However, you all know that we don't
believe it" and went on to teach evolutionary theory in a ridiculous
manner that was so transparent I felt compelled to get some books on
it from the town library.

Sounds like someone who should be fired.

Evolution is not a theory. It is an established fact. There is
absolutely no reason either, that you cannot uncompromisingly combine
religious feelings with a belief in scientific knowledge. I had a
genetics and evolution professor at university who was a Presbytarian
deaconess. When I asked her if there was any conflict, she replied
"The more I learn about science, the more it reinforces my belief in
God" I now understand what she meant. It all depends on your personal
concept of God.

It is and it's also a fact:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

The "facts" of the book of Genesis were written down for the first
time in the time of King Hezekiah, over 800 years from when Moses
died. It was only in 1844 that a rather scholarly and widely read book
was published describing dinosaur bones having been formed by
"plastic force" and inspired by Satan to lead us astray. If I recall,
the author was one "Werner".

I love it when someone quotes the bible. Which bible? Written by whom?
Translated by whom? There are so damn many. It's hard to keep them straight
(or a straight face, for that matter.)

Sorry, I get carried away on this subject as I can see a new dark age
controlled by conservative religious fundamentalists fast coming upon
us. A major recession, huge unemployment and a couple of wars is all
that it will take. Raw capitalism is not serving us all that well it
seems by current economic events.

"Coming upon us?" You're living in the past. It's here. Don't look over your
shoulder too quickly.

JC, I do agree that it would be great if society was controlled by
rational thinking scientists. However, human nature being what it is
and has always been, self serving politicians will arise and take back
control, even be it from behind the throne. Also, scientists are not
divorced from ego, selfishness, greed and all the other human
frailities. It just would not work unfortunately. I can give you
concrete examples of where scientists whose decision on, for example,
sustainable fisheries quotas, have sold out to business for personal
gain. They are not evil men but it is surprising easy to overstate
your projections in someone's favour when they offer you a high paying
job "if you ever think of leaving the Government". Asd a result these
fisheries such as the deep sea Orange Roughie have totally collapsed.

I disagree. It could work if we act to control our leaps of faith that tend
to creep into public policy. Despite our emotions, we can work to rid
ourselves of the scourge of religion. Fortunately, I never liked that fish
(Orange Roughie)... double entendre being the fricken "fish" people plaster
on the back of their SUVs.

As for science. How many of your politicians (or mine) could give you
a tolerable account of the science behind global warming, climate
change, evolution and such? Very few indeed but they are being asked
to legislate for your country's benefit and survival. You have given
them that power to decide on your future.

Too few, but politicians are lead by the nose by the people. People make a
lot of mistakes, but they eventually get it right.

Grossly Off topic but interesting,

regards
Peter



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

Herodotus wrote in
:

Atheism
has also been described as a religion.


Sort of like Zero is a number.....or lack of....

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:09:21 +1000, Herodotus
said:

You have given
them that power to decide on your future.

Damned inconvenient, those voters.


Assuming you don't believe Larry's consipiracy theories of course. LOL

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