| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Bomber, I always celebrate the intervals of daylight commencing to become longer! And I always get a little depressed around June 20 too, when the daylight intervals commence getting shorter. I can do both Winter festivus and Christmas at the same time.  Now for M1...  | ||
| Blake |
M1, I cannot disagree more strongly with your view of what our nation's formal recognition of God truly means. My view is that our founding fathers and our nation formally recognize the God of Abraham or possibly in the most benign, the God of nature, in either case, our creator. America is a Judeo Christian nation, one nation, under God...  What church our nation might endorse is entirely another matter and prohibited by the first amendment. We don't endorse Judaism, or Catholicism, or Protestantism, or Islamism, or the Baptists or Methodists, or Lutherans, or Presbyterians, or the Church of Christ, or ... Some historical context on "God" as officially recognized by the government of the United States of America. The emphasis is mine.
Which "creator" do you imagine our founding fathers understood had endowed us with the unalienable rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happinesss"? You want to rewrite history and tell me that that "creator" or "God" is whatever anyone might like it to be? Then in my view you better be prepared for those previously "unalienable rights" to evaporate, because my friend, they are only recognized as edowed to us by that God, our creator.
Some anti-God types would like us to believe that "establishment" as stated in the 1st amendment is used as a verb. It is not. In the 1st amendment the word "establishment" is used as a noun whose meaning translates to "denomination", "church", "synogogue", "temple" or "mosque." How do we know this? Read about the history and intent of the establishment clause. It was intended only to avoid an American version of the Church of England. It's that simple. What it is NOT is a prohibition against our government from officially recognizing our God/creator. The activist anti-God crowd will spin this all over the place, but that is the simple and accurate truth. Hold your ground Christian. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Instead of "One Nation Under God" I think you should follow what Clinton said...(george that is) ONE NATION UNDER A GROOVE!  | ||
| Kdan |
But, there is no god. Only religion. The Egyptians had Ra, now we have Jaweh, or Jehovah. | ||
| Brucelee |
"But, there is no god. Only religion" One belief for another. How are you better off? | ||
| Brucelee |
"How do we know this? Read about the history and intent of the establishment clause. It was intended only to avoid an American version of the Church of England. It's that simple" It is my recollection that the original founders of the USA were all pretty religious. They were trying to establish a place that reflected that and as, Blake indicates, NOT have the equiv. of the Church of England. To follow what the ACLU and atheists want to do is NOT what the original founders had in mind. IMHO. | ||
| P0p0k0pf |
"To follow what the ACLU and atheists want to do is NOT what the original founders had in mind. " Their intent was to follow no one group or ideal outside of freedom and equality. They also knew that what they had in mind and what is good for America will never always mix well, and they accomodated change into our government. I really don't understand... If religion is based on faith, why do these materialistic issues flare up so frequently? Doesn't sound like strong faith if so many "religious" people worry so much... | ||
| P0p0k0pf |
}}"their Creator" There is a distinct reason it is "their Creator" and not "the Creator". This is not supporting evidence for America's recognition of the Christian God | ||
| Blake |
I agree P0p. Which is why I clarified in my explanation that "My view is that our founding fathers and our nation formally recognize the God of Abraham or possibly in the most benign, the God of nature..." Just please remember that it is our "creator" who is credited with endowing to us our dear "unalienable rights" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Which is why if the anti-God mob has their way, our "unalienable rights" are in much greater jeopardy of evaporating. Seems to me then that continuing to formally recognize God via our national government is vitally important if we intend to maintain our unalienable rights. | ||
| M1combat |
"I" agree with you Blake . "My" creator is IMO the God of Christianity. That said... I have no right whatsoever to tell any of my fellow men who their creator is. The fact that my Bible tells me to spread the word does not GIVE me that RIGHT either. It gives me the responsibility to investigate and to chose who will be receptive to listening and share the word with them. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. " The laws of nature... The laws of Nature's God... Interesting statement that one. Would you refuse to accept that maybe some of our fore-fathers were Pagan? Based on my limited understanding of that collection of religions, some of the wording of our founding documents and the type of persecution that was demonstrated by the old world at the time I'd just about bet that there were at least a few. I think it's very un-likely that they were ALL one form of Christian or another. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Of course we do , but that there "creator" is "just that". A "creator". Nowhere in that document or any other that was signed by our fore fathers does it say that "their creator" is "the Creator from the Christian Bible". "I" believe it IS the creator from the Christian Bible myself, but I don't think that there's anything wrong at all with someone thinking otherwise. I also don't see that as a threat to my freedoms. "You want to rewrite history and tell me that that "creator" or "God" is whatever anyone might like it to be? Then in my view you better be prepared for those previously "unalienable rights" to evaporate, because my friend, they are only recognized as edowed to us by that God, our creator. " See... You said "that God". "That" in that sentence implies what to you? I'm pretty sure it implies the same thing to me as it does to you... just for the record. However... to other people it implies "other" gods. That's fine by me as long as their god isn't telling them that they should lop off my head because I'm an infidel, and as long as their CHURCH isn't telling them that they should get on a horse, ride SE until they're surrounded by sand and kill everyone who refuses to accept Jesus as their savior, and as long as their CHURCH isn't telling them that there's some lady in the woods who doesn't make it to church regularly... Go burn her if she refuses to show up this sunday. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" "Some anti-God types would like us to believe that "establishment" as stated in the 1st amendment is used as a verb. It is not. In the 1st amendment the word "establishment" is used as a noun whose meaning translates to "denomination", "church", "synogogue", "temple" or "mosque." How do we know this? Read about the history and intent of the establishment clause. It was intended only to avoid an American version of the Church of England. It's that simple. What it is NOT is a prohibition against our government from officially recognizing our God/creator. The activist anti-God crowd will spin this all over the place, but that is the simple and accurate truth. Hold your ground Christian." What it is NOT is a prohibition against our government from officially recognizing "that there is a" God/creator. That's how "I" would have written that statement. My constitution does NOT give me the right to force my beliefs upon someone else. My constitution does NOT give me the right to do anything other than tell someone how/what I believe. My constitution DOES give me the right to believe whatever I would like to. (it's a two way street too) I may not agree with what someone says/believes, but I WILL defend to the death their right to say/believe it. Pagans believe in a creator too. That creator certainly endowed THEM with those SAME unalienable rights, yet they are continually misunderstood and even harrassed, oppressed and sometimes... yes... even heckled, because of it . I read a story a while back about a judge that wouldn't allow EITHER parent to have custody based SOLELY on their religion. They were both good parents, they both could provide for the child and they both wanted the child. Of course, there was an appeal and the ruling was overturned but that's not the point. In any case... I agree. We are endowed with certain unalienable rights by our creator . Who am I to tell someone just exactly WHO that creator is? I can only tell them who I believe it is, and why I believe it. | ||
| M1combat |
Just for the record... Pagans are most certainly not the "anti-God" crowd. They have more Gods than I do that's for sure . | ||
| Light_keeper |
This week in Portland Maine they had the lighting of the "Holiday Tree" so named so as not to offend anyone. And get this The tree is for everyone and not supposed to have any religious leanings what so ever. The next day a menorah was erected right next to it. The official explaination is so that no one will feel discriminated. ???? The "Holiday tree" is so named because someone complained that a "Christmas Tree" on city property was a clear violation of the separation of church and state. The "Holiday candlestick holder"(my lable) is refered to by the city as a "Menorah". I have no issue with the tree or the menorah infact I think it is great that we can display both, but lets refer to them by what they are not make up PC names. The next thing you know we will not refer to churches as churches because we might offend. They will become "those buildings in which people do things that can not be spoken of in public" as they are too offensive to some.  | ||
| Blake |
Kdan, We once had a discussion going, long since archived here, on the existence or not of a creator. It is a very interesting topic of debate. One I enjoy immensely. However, I'm not sure that a mere absolutist statement like "there is no God" contributes much to the debate or the understanding of the issue.  For me the whole issue comes down to common sense and logic. I observe the infinite beauty and complexity of life on Earth and of the universe and recognize clearly that it is the result of intent and vast unfathomable intelligence. Why cannot everyone see so clearly as I now do? I was once atheistic myself. So maybe I can provide some perspective on that question. For me, it was a forest for the trees issue and it also came down to simple basic logic. It really does surprise me how some intelligent folks can so easily recognize as created/designed so many material things around us yet fail to do likewise for the most complex, most perfect, most beautiful, most efficient, most enduring things around us. I mean even having never ever seen one before, I doubt that any human would ever mistakenly suspect that a motorcycle, or roadway, or a mere telephone pole had come to its condition through happenstance, a result of mere accident. No, most folks recognize that such "complex" and ordered things must have been intentionally designed, created on purpose by intelligent beings. How is it then that such folks can look at the infinitely more complex and superior designs comprising life and the universe yet fail to recognize that more than anything they are the result of intentional creation? The recent revelations about the beauty and unbelievable efficiency of DNA encoding has given pause to quite a few thoughtful and highly intelligent atheists. It cracks me up to no end to hear the anti-God mob of scientists trying to refute the idea of a creator by stating that such proposition is "not science!" LOL. I wonder how in scientific terms they would describe the existence of the pyramids. Pretty sure they were created. Or a telephone pole, again, created. Creation accurately and scientifically describes the formation and existence of many observable phenomenon and material things. But the idea of "creation" is "not science"? LOL! The assertion that the idea of "creation is not science" is itself wholly unscientific, it is a "religious" conviction. So is your assertion that "there is no God", that is a also religious conviction. Observing life and the universe around us then holding that it all came to be entirely accidentally through mere happenstance takes a heck of a lot more faith than most folks can muster. Who would have the nerve to look at the great pyramid and proclaim "there were no Egyptians"? Or to view the mass graves and corpses at Auschwitz and proclaim "there was no holocaust"? Or to peruse this site and announce "there are no Buell motorcycles"?  Not I!  | ||
| Kdan |
In the words of Harvard biologist-paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, "Creation science is an oxymoron." An oxymoron (lit., "a wise fool" is a contradiction in terms. Just as it is impossible for a fool to be wise, so too is it impossible for creationism to be science. Anyone concerned about the meanings of words must concur with Professor Gould in his judgment. Because any intelligible use of the term creation must imply the existence of a creator, and because the creator of all of nature must be, quite literally, super-natural, we see that the fundamental force operating in "creation science" is a super-natural force - which is a polite term for magic. Science, however, involves the study of natural forces only, and ceases to be science when it attempts to explain phenomena by means of super-natural forces. As for founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson claimed to be a Free Thinker. Want some quotes? | ||
| Chainsaw |
I don't recall the Declaration of Independance having any legal weight in this country. We're legally bound by the Constitution. This country has changed significantly in the past 229 years. The Founding Fathers thought owning blacks was ok, yet we divine their intent now to suit the narrow self-serving beliefs of the religious 'faithful'. Only Christians think having "In God We Trust" on currency is cool. What's wrong with keeping God off our money? Why not but Allah or Budda on every 10th coin? Sounds fair to me. Would that offend Christians? Why should the First Amendment be interpreted differently because you wear a cross? | ||
| Kdan |
But Blake, I too believe in Buells, so we got that going for us. | ||
| Blake |
M1, I should have been more clear. I strongly disagree with the following: "It's just "GOD". Whoever that is to YOU." "In my experience the ones that don't believe in God see themselves as their "higher power". In that case, "God" on our dollar bill refers to THEM." I agree with the following: "I happen to be a Christian, but I also understand that the "GOD" mentioned in our texts is BOTH the God of Christianity AND NOT the God of Christianity." Through their words in the Declaration of Independence America's founding fathers did indeed provide some very clear definition of how they viewed "God." Let's take their statements one at a time, and see what they might tell us. "...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... They do not state"or Nature's God" they state "and Nature's God." What then does that phrase clearly indicate? It indicates that our founding fathers viewed God as being in command of or responsible for the laws of nature, not equal to or the same as the laws of nature, but wholly in command of or at least responsible for them as their designer/creator. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." That statement indicates clearly that our founding fathers viewed God as our creator and that he/she possessed not only the ability to bestow such rights but also that our creator acted through deliberate intent to endow to mankind the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This in turn tells us that our founding fathers viewed our creator/God as staunchly favoring life over death, liberty over oppression, and freedom and happiness over servitude and misery. Their view is clearly of a God who cares for his creation and the prosperity (life) liberty and happiness of humanity in particular. "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." Unmistakably the founders of the United States of America firmly relied upon their God and creator's care and guardianship, not only as justification for their actions, but also for the success and protection of their declared intents. So in sum what then do we know about the God as officially recognized by our government of the people, by the people and for the people? Anything? Yes, much actually. Nothing? Absolutely not! Which is what I understood you to imply and the reason I so strongly disagreed with some of your statements. On the rest, we are seemingly in horribly disappointing agreement. | ||
| Blake |
Chainsaw, If America's Declaration of Independence doesn't carry any legal weight as you claim, Britain will be overjoyed to hear it. Send your taxes to Tony Blair and company if that is what you truly believe, cause our government is apparently a fraud. One may write a constitution and declare it law, but without basis and justification for doing so, it is meaningless. First there must be an independent nation, no? Our nation, its very being and its entire over-riding philosophy of government is defined, justified and made viable only by this nation's Declaration of Independence and its successful defense. Question: What do you imagine our founding fathers viewed as the source of "the Blessings of Liberty"? Hint: A perfect synonym for "Blessings" as used above would be "endowments", or more simply to bless is to endow. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." You really want to eliminate our government's formal recognition of God? Like I've said, that will put in jeopardy the very basis and justification for our nation's existence not to mention our cherished unalienable rights. Kdan, I'll not argue "creationism" as that implies a religious connotation and has no place in a discussion of science. So you might say that I agree with your professor's position in that respect. However, that is also a common way for the anti-creator crowd to avoid honest scientific debate, they only need glibly declare their opponents' views "unscientific." How convenient. As to what is supernatural, that is merely a way to describe that which is not yet scientifically known/explainable. There was a time when some folks thought the pyramids must have benefited from supernatural intervention for their construction. We now understand that they were created by men. My point? A lack of understanding of how something magnificent was created does not make the fact that it was created unscientific. Nor does the absence of a flesh and blood or otherwise physically manifested creator render unscientific the supremely logical conclusion that something was indeed created. To take such a position is akin to a primitive culture first experiencing their own recorded image/voice and attributing the "miracle" to the supernatural. Trust me, relative to our creator, you and I are infinitely more primitive than our less modern human relatives who live in wilderness entirely isolated from modern civilization are to us. Don't be such a primitive. Einstein wasn't. (Message edited by Blake on December 01, 2005) | ||
| Blake |
Kdan, Further clarification: My view is that to state that "I don't understand how life first began" or "I don't understand how the the matter comprising the universe came into being" would each be scientifically acceptable statements. To state that "life and the known universe is the result of random chance, it is not the result of any intentional act" is not in the least scientific. No, that would be a statement of religious conviction. To state that "there exists significant material evidence and supporting statistical analysis that tends to refute the idea that random chance is responsible for the origin of life and the matter comprising our universe" is entirely scientific. To then infer that an intelligence having some intent must be responsible for the origin of life and the matter comprising the universe is simple honest deductive reasoning, aka logic. If something didn't happen by accident, through mere unguided happenstance, then it must have occurred through intent or via some intelligent guidance/design. That's basically what the science of origins comes down to at this point, either life and the material comprising the universe is all a result of mere random chance and mere happenstance, or it was the result of some amount of intentional guidance/design. Those are the two scientifically plausible views. Well, I guess we could have been accidentally created. I think my sister owes her existence to that line of reasoning.  | ||
| Oldog |
Blake: sorry to have started a stirr here, all I can say is............... BROTHER YOU ROCK!  This has been enlightening, interesting, and just plain great, Would you care to comment on the P.IC. "Defacing" of comunity property with the 10 commandments?, Me I'm just tired of the vocal minority trying to rough shod over the rest of us. | ||
| Vegasbueller |
I usually stand aside on religious discussions, but it seems this one is staying more educational than a blood bath, so I thought I would add some to the "educational side". Following is what some would call the "Commandments" of the Pagan/Wiccan religion. It was written in 1974 by the Council Of American Witches as a set of core principals. 1. We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces marked by the phases of the Moon, and the seasonal Quarters, and Cross Quarters. 2. We recognise that our intelligence gives us a unique responsibility toward our environment. We seek to live in harmony with Nature, in ecological balance offering fulfillment of life and consciousness within an evolutionary concept. 3. We acknowledge a depth of power far greater than that apparent to the average person. Because it is far greater than ordinary, it is sometimes called "supernatural," but we see it as lying within that which is naturally potential to all. 4. We conceive of the Creative Power in the universe as manifesting through polarity - as masculine and feminine - and that this same Creative Power lies in all people, and functions through the interaction of the masculine and the feminine. We value neither above the other, knowing each to be supportive of the other. We value sex as pleasure, as the symbol and embodiment of life, and as one of the sources of energies used in magical practice and religious worship. 5. We recognise both outer worlds and inner, or psychological, worlds sometimes known as the Spiritual World, the Collective Unconsciousness, Inner Planes, etc. - and we see in the inter-action of these two dimensions the basis for paranormal phenomena, and magical exercises. We neglect neither dimension for the other, seeing both as necessary for our fulfillment. 6. We do not recognise any authoritarian hierarchy, but do honour those who teach, respect those who share their greater knowledge and wisdom, and acknowledge those who have courageously given of themselves in leadership. 7. We see religion, magic and wisdom in living as being united in the way one views the world and lives within it - a world view and philosophy of life which we identify as Witchcraft - The Wiccan Way. 8. Calling oneself "witch" does not make a witch - but neither does heredity itself, nor the collecting of titles, degrees and initiations. A witch seeks to control the forces within her/himself that makes life possible in order to live wisely and well without harm to others and in harmony with nature. 9. We believe in the affirmation and fulfillment of life in a continuation of evolution and development of consciousness giving meaning to the Universe we know and our personal role within it. 10. Our only animosity towards Christianity, or towards any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claims to the "the only way," and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief. 11. As Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the Craft, the origins of various terms, the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions. We are concerned with our present and our future. 12. We do not accept the concept of absolute evil, nor do we worship any entity known as "Satan" or "the Devil," as defined by Christian tradition. We do not seek power through the suffering of others, nor accept that personal benefit can be derived only by denial to another. 13. We believe that we should seek within Nature that which is contributory to our health and well-being. And Blake... as long as I have been alive I have never noticed or either misread that statement about "Nature's God". I was always confused how America's beliefs and law could have been formed here on the very soil where so many Native Americans worshipped the many gods of nature. Nick | ||
| Blake |
I'm not familiar with the religions of Native Americans. | ||
| Chainsaw |
I'm not familiar with the religions of Native Americans. The Declaration of Independence refers to "Native Americans" as 'Merciless Indian Savages". I'm guessing the Founding Fathers wouldn't think much of the way they worshiped.
| ||
| Black_sunshine |
Blake....3 words about Kdan. He is Canadian. That should explain a lot.  Kdan....I impressed by your display of Brainpower....didn't know you had it in ya. Anytime you, I and the 3%ers get together, we seem to only talk about booze, Buells, strippers and tattooed scantly clad waitresses and the Vortex. Seriously....Blake, Kdan, etc. Nice discussion and very entertaining as well as grown up. Keep it up...I'm enjoying this thread | ||
| Vegasbueller |
I am not sure I can educate you on the full breadth of Native American Religion, Blake, but I think I can provide some facts and insight. Here are a few points to ponder: Their Deity: A common concept is that of a dual divinity: a Creator who is responsible for the creation of the world and is recognized in religious ritual and prayers a mythical individual, a hero or trickster, who teaches culture, proper behavior and provides sustenance to their tribe. There are also spirits which control the weather, spirits which interact with humans, and others who inhabit the underworld. Simultaneously the Creator and the spirits may be perceived as a single spiritual force, as in the unity called Wakan-Tanka by the Lakota and Dakota. Creation: Individual tribes have differing stories of Creation. One set of themes found in some tribes describes that in the beginning, the world was populated by many people. Most were subsequently transformed into animals. Natives thus feel a close bond with animals because of their shared human ancestry. Dogs are excluded from this relationship. This bond is shown in the frequent rituals in which animal behavior is simulated. Each species has its master; for example, the deer have a master deer who is larger than all the others. The master of humans is the Creator. Afterlife: In general, Native religions have no precise belief about life after death. Some believe in reincarnation, with a person being reborn either as a human or animal after death. Others believe that humans return as ghosts, or that people go to an other world. Others believe that nothing definitely can be known about one's fate after this life. I am part Cheorkee, and wish that I had been fortunate enough for someone to have imparted a drop of knowledge of the ceremony, beliefs and history of them to me. What I am telling you here, Blake is mainly from long hours of reading. And to second BS ... nice to see this stay civil. Nick | ||
| Blake |
Chainsaw, Interesting point. I hear those Cherokees were the absolute worst. <ducking Vegas' tomahawk> Thanks Vegas. Interesting diversity as I expected. We've had discussions here before about creation/evolution before. They've always been civil from what I recall. Politics is the divisive topic to avoid. This thread is somewhat political. (Message edited by Blake on December 01, 2005) | ||
| Tramp |
vegasbueller- there are so many varied creationist and deital beliefs in the older pan-amerind world that the differences are as disparate and opposed as Druidism and Zoroastrianism. you just can't categorize them under any one umbrella. The Peyote, alone, in huichol culture put such a spin on their belief structure it'd turn jerry garcia rosicrucian, and the grotesque, prolonged, torture/sacrifice rituals of the algonquin would make caligula blanch. religion is a tough one to discuss on the 'net. my hat is off to those of you who throw your own into that tenuous ring. As for me, I'm contented NOT to be a dyslexic agnostic insomniac, that I might lie awake at night wondering if there's a dog.... | ||
| Sarinstructor |
To everyone participating in this thread; what a great discussion! I was raised Catholic but when I was around 13 we stopped going to chuch. Being a 13 year old heavily involved in sports, I didn't mind too much. Later in life I asked my dad why we stopped going and he told me he got tired of the hypocrisy. "Do what you want during the week, confess Friday, and be saved". I've kept my Christian PHILOSOPHY since then and try to live a "good" life. My question is this: is "Intelligent Design" a legitimate belief or is it a cop-out? Personally, it solved some of the problems I've had with connecting a strong Christian up-bringing with all the science classes I've taken in school; God created all things necessary for life to evolve to where we are now. It's up to us where we take things in the future. Blake, Is that a cop-out? I agree with what you said about something as exquisite as nature and the universe being planned by an extraordinary intelligence but I cannot deny the cold, hard scientific facts of evolution either. As Bill O'reilly says: What say you? | ||
| Tramp |
sarinstructor: I, too, am a recovering Catholic. I haven't been a true catholic since i was a toddler, which is tragic in a nosferatu sort of way. Can't beat catholicsim for it's Goth appeal. I think any of us can live by the principles of Christ, Abraham, Mohammed, Buddha, Zoraoaster, et al, and be more compared than contrasted by our common path. Somehow, in our common European ancestry, the symbols of our ancestral tenets bear witness to our present beings. indeed, the Christmas tree, the easter egg, the Jack-o-lantern and certainly the maypole are all atavistic carry-on luggage that have somehow escaped the TSA employees of our contemporary,nominate desert beliefs, impressed upon our ancestors by power-mad Roman conquerors. that being said, however, I think that claiming any scientific facts as hard and/or cold is myopic in it's antiscope; indeed, today's facts will be tomorrow's jokes, shuttled by mailroom clerks to the archives wherein reside the flat earth, evil-boding comets and the Jetsons' 1994 future-a-go-go. At some point, the finest tenets of our world religions may just turn out, by chance or by some greater power, to be the cold, hard facts.... there can be no absolutes, and so it follows this statement cannot, then, possibly be one. | ||
| Vegasbueller |
Good one Blake! I agree on the politics. I just refuse to get into those discussions at all. I have seen many a friend lost, and even a few drops of blood shed over what started as a simple "political" debate. Interestingly enough, I have seen close to the same in religious discussions, but I too have been enjoying the diversity, and even now the "scientific" aspect of this one. Actually Tramp. I heard that the ultimate religion was the Methobapteriapaganolic. |
