Six facts to chew on regarding our country:
(1) The Pharmaceutical Industry has more lobbyists (read: bribery) in Washington, D.C. than any other corporate power.
(2) The same drugs purchased in the U.S. can be purchased cheaper in both Canada and Mexico (and probably damn near most other countries).
(3) An estimated 43 million Americans do not have any insurance at all.
(4) A report released today, 6/22: "Chief executive officers in the United States earned 262 times the pay of an average worker in 2005, the second-highest level in the 40 years for which there is data", from the Economic Policy Institute.
(5) The U.S. Senate this week voted down a proposed minimum wage increase from $5.15 hr to $7.25 hr. which has been in effect for 10 years.
(6) This same Senate recently voted themselves, many who are already multi-millionaires, a pay increase to $178, 500 a year!
I could go on, but really, how much can you take without feeling like shit?
Fuck these fucking politician-mother-fuckers! Vote every fucking one of them out of fucking office.
Underdogs unite!
What in the World is going on???
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
From the article sited below.I'm sorry, but the use of torture under any circumstances is a moral issue, not a public-relations dilemma.
I don't what is going on?
Tell me about it.
Is it some kind of Zen thing?
It don't matter Cecil.
It just don't fucking matter.
Because:
We are all going to die
It is the Rapture man
Dig it.
Jesus loves you. He wants you to be rich. To the victor belongs the spoils of war. THey are just collecting their winnings.
The whole article is at this link. I posted a couple of paragraphs
Jesus Is Not a Republican
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm
I doubt very much that I will be invited back to Edman Chapel. One of the benefits of being reared within evangelicalism, I suppose, is that you understand the workings of the evangelical subculture. I know, for example, that when my new book on evangelicals appears, the minions of the religious right will seek to discredit me rather than engage the substance of my arguments. The initial wave of criticism, as an old friend who has endured similar attacks reminded me, will be to deny that I am, in fact, really an evangelical Christian. When that fails — and I'll put up my credentials as an evangelical against anyone's! — the next approach will be some gratuitous personal attack: that I am a member of the academic elite, spokesman for the Northeastern establishment, misguided liberal, prodigal son, traitor to the faith, or some such. Another evangelical friend with political convictions similar to mine actually endured a heresy trial.
The evangelical subculture, which prizes conformity above all else, doesn't suffer rebels gladly, and it is especially intolerant of anyone with the temerity to challenge the shibboleths of the religious right. I understand that. Despite their putative claims to the faith, the leaders of the religious right are vicious toward anyone who refuses to kowtow to their version of orthodoxy, and their machinery of vilification strikes with ruthless, dispassionate efficiency. Longtime friends (and not a few family members) will shuffle uneasily around me and studiously avoid any sort of substantive conversation about the issues I raise — and then quietly strike my name from their Christmas-card lists. Circle the wagons. Brook no dissent.
And so, since my chances of being invited back to Edman Chapel have dropped from slim to none, I offer here an outline of what I would like to say to the students at Wheaton and, by extension, to evangelicals everywhere.
Evangelicals have come a long way since my visit to Edman Chapel in 1972. We have moved from cultural obscurity — almost invisibility — to becoming a major force in American society. Jimmy Carter's run for the presidency launched us into the national consciousness, but evangelicals abandoned Carter by the end of the 1970s, as the nascent religious right forged an alliance with the Republican Party.
In terms of cultural and political influence, that alliance has been a bonanza for both sides. The coalition dominates talk radio and controls a growing number of state legislatures and local school boards. It is seeking, with some initial success, to recast Hollywood and the entertainment industry. The Republicans have come to depend on religious-right voters as their most reliable constituency, and, with the Republicans firmly in command of all three branches of the federal government, leaders of the religious right now enjoy unprecedented access to power.
And what has the religious right done with its political influence? Judging by the platform and the policies of the Republican Party — and I'm aware of no way to disentangle the agenda of the Republican Party from the goals of the religious right — the purpose of all this grasping for power looks something like this: an expansion of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the continued prosecution of a war in the Middle East that enraged our longtime allies and would not meet even the barest of just-war criteria, and a rejiggering of Social Security, the effect of which, most observers agree, would be to fray the social-safety net for the poorest among us. Public education is very much imperiled by Republican policies, to the evident satisfaction of the religious right, and it seeks to replace science curricula with theology, thereby transforming students into catechumens.
America's grossly disproportionate consumption of energy continues unabated, prompting demands for oil exploration in environmentally sensitive areas. The Bush administration has jettisoned U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which called on Americans to make at least a token effort to combat global warming. Corporate interests are treated with the kind of reverence and deference once reserved for the deity.
The Bible contains something like 2,000 references to the poor and the believer's responsibility for the poor. Sadly, that obligation seems not to have trickled down into public policy. On judicial matters, the religious right demands appointees who would diminish individual rights to privacy with regard to abortion. At the same time, it approves a corresponding expansion of presidential powers, thereby disrupting the constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances.
The torture of human beings, God's creatures — some guilty of crimes, others not — has been justified by the Bush administration, which also believes that it is perfectly acceptable to conduct surveillance on American citizens without putting itself to the trouble of obtaining a court order. Indeed, the chicanery, the bullying, and the flouting of the rule of law that emanates from the nation's capital these days make Richard Nixon look like a fraternity prankster.
Where does the religious right stand in all this? Following the revelations that the U.S. government exported prisoners to nations that have no scruples about the use of torture, I wrote to several prominent religious-right organizations. Please send me, I asked, a copy of your organization's position on the administration's use of torture. Surely, I thought, this is one issue that would allow the religious right to demonstrate its independence from the administration, for surely no one who calls himself a child of God or who professes to hear "fetal screams" could possibly countenance the use of torture. Although I didn't really expect that the religious right would climb out of the Republican Party's cozy bed over the torture of human beings, I thought perhaps they might poke out a foot and maybe wiggle a toe or two.
I was wrong. Of the eight religious-right organizations I contacted, only two, the Family Research Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy, answered my query. Both were eager to defend administration policies. "It is our understanding, from statements released by the Bush administration," the reply from the Family Research Council read, "that torture is already prohibited as a means of collecting intelligence data." The Institute on Religion and Democracy stated that "torture is a violation of human dignity, contrary to biblical teachings," but conceded that it had "not yet produced a more comprehensive statement on the subject," even months after the revelations. Its president worried that the "anti-torture campaign seems to be aimed exclusively at the Bush administration," thereby creating a public-relations challenge.
I'm sorry, but the use of torture under any circumstances is a moral issue, not a public-relations dilemma.
Last edited by stilltrucking on June 23rd, 2006, 10:30 am, edited 3 times in total.
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
I don't know what is going on?
Tell me about it.
Is it some kind of Zen thing?
It don't matter Cecil.
It just don't fucking matter.
Because:
Jesus W Christ is a Republican
and
We are all going to die
It is the Rapture man
Dig it.
The party of god has won the culture wars. To the victor belongs the spoils of war. They are just collecting their winnings.
____________________________________________________
Jesus Is Not a Republican,
Interesting article by Professor From Columbia University. I posted a couple paragraphs, the full aritcle at this link
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm
...One of the benefits of being reared within evangelicalism, I suppose, is that you understand the workings of the evangelical subculture. I know, for example, that when my new book on evangelicals appears, the minions of the religious right will seek to discredit me rather than engage the substance of my arguments. The initial wave of criticism, as an old friend who has endured similar attacks reminded me, will be to deny that I am, in fact, really an evangelical Christian. When that fails — and I'll put up my credentials as an evangelical against anyone's! — the next approach will be some gratuitous personal attack: that I am a member of the academic elite, spokesman for the Northeastern establishment, misguided liberal, prodigal son, traitor to the faith, or some such. Another evangelical friend with political convictions similar to mine actually endured a heresy trial.
The evangelical subculture, which prizes conformity above all else, doesn't suffer rebels gladly, and it is especially intolerant of anyone with the temerity to challenge the shibboleths of the religious right. I understand that. Despite their putative claims to the faith, the leaders of the religious right are vicious toward anyone who refuses to kowtow to their version of orthodoxy, and their machinery of vilification strikes with ruthless, dispassionate efficiency. Longtime friends (and not a few family members) will shuffle uneasily around me and studiously avoid any sort of substantive conversation about the issues I raise — and then quietly strike my name from their Christmas-card lists. Circle the wagons. Brook no dissent.
And so, since my chances of being invited back to Edman Chapel have dropped from slim to none, I offer here an outline of what I would like to say to the students at Wheaton and, by extension, to evangelicals everywhere.
Evangelicals have come a long way since my visit to Edman Chapel in 1972. We have moved from cultural obscurity — almost invisibility — to becoming a major force in American society. Jimmy Carter's run for the presidency launched us into the national consciousness, but evangelicals abandoned Carter by the end of the 1970s, as the nascent religious right forged an alliance with the Republican Party.
In terms of cultural and political influence, that alliance has been a bonanza for both sides. The coalition dominates talk radio and controls a growing number of state legislatures and local school boards. It is seeking, with some initial success, to recast Hollywood and the entertainment industry. The Republicans have come to depend on religious-right voters as their most reliable constituency, and, with the Republicans firmly in command of all three branches of the federal government, leaders of the religious right now enjoy unprecedented access to power.
And what has the religious right done with its political influence? Judging by the platform and the policies of the Republican Party — and I'm aware of no way to disentangle the agenda of the Republican Party from the goals of the religious right — the purpose of all this grasping for power looks something like this: an expansion of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the continued prosecution of a war in the Middle East that enraged our longtime allies and would not meet even the barest of just-war criteria, and a rejiggering of Social Security, the effect of which, most observers agree, would be to fray the social-safety net for the poorest among us. Public education is very much imperiled by Republican policies, to the evident satisfaction of the religious right, and it seeks to replace science curricula with theology, thereby transforming students into catechumens.
America's grossly disproportionate consumption of energy continues unabated, prompting demands for oil exploration in environmentally sensitive areas. The Bush administration has jettisoned U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which called on Americans to make at least a token effort to combat global warming. Corporate interests are treated with the kind of reverence and deference once reserved for the deity.
The Bible contains something like 2,000 references to the poor and the believer's responsibility for the poor. Sadly, that obligation seems not to have trickled down into public policy. On judicial matters, the religious right demands appointees who would diminish individual rights to privacy with regard to abortion. At the same time, it approves a corresponding expansion of presidential powers, thereby disrupting the constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances.
The torture of human beings, God's creatures — some guilty of crimes, others not — has been justified by the Bush administration, which also believes that it is perfectly acceptable to conduct surveillance on American citizens without putting itself to the trouble of obtaining a court order. Indeed, the chicanery, the bullying, and the flouting of the rule of law that emanates from the nation's capital these days make Richard Nixon look like a fraternity prankster.
Where does the religious right stand in all this? Following the revelations that the U.S. government exported prisoners to nations that have no scruples about the use of torture, I wrote to several prominent religious-right organizations. Please send me, I asked, a copy of your organization's position on the administration's use of torture. Surely, I thought, this is one issue that would allow the religious right to demonstrate its independence from the administration, for surely no one who calls himself a child of God or who professes to hear "fetal screams" could possibly countenance the use of torture. Although I didn't really expect that the religious right would climb out of the Republican Party's cozy bed over the torture of human beings, I thought perhaps they might poke out a foot and maybe wiggle a toe or two.
I was wrong. Of the eight religious-right organizations I contacted, only two, the Family Research Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy, answered my query. Both were eager to defend administration policies. "It is our understanding, from statements released by the Bush administration," the reply from the Family Research Council read, "that torture is already prohibited as a means of collecting intelligence data." The Institute on Religion and Democracy stated that "torture is a violation of human dignity, contrary to biblical teachings," but conceded that it had "not yet produced a more comprehensive statement on the subject," even months after the revelations. Its president worried that the "anti-torture campaign seems to be aimed exclusively at the Bush administration," thereby creating a public-relations challenge.
I'm sorry, but the use of torture under any circumstances is a moral issue, not a public-relations dilemma.
....article continues at link posted above
Tell me about it.
Is it some kind of Zen thing?
It don't matter Cecil.
It just don't fucking matter.
Because:
Jesus W Christ is a Republican
and
We are all going to die
It is the Rapture man
Dig it.
The party of god has won the culture wars. To the victor belongs the spoils of war. They are just collecting their winnings.
From the article sited below."The Bible I read tells of freedom for captives and deliverance from oppression. It teaches that those who refuse to act with justice or who neglect the plight of those less fortunate have some explaining to do. But the Bible is also about good news. It promises redemption and forgiveness, a chance to start anew and, with divine help, to get it right. My evangelical theology assures me that no one, not even Karl Rove or James Dobson, lies beyond the reach of redemption, and that even a people led astray can find their way home."
"That sounds like good news to me. Very good news indeed."
____________________________________________________
Jesus Is Not a Republican,
Interesting article by Professor From Columbia University. I posted a couple paragraphs, the full aritcle at this link
http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42b00601.htm
...One of the benefits of being reared within evangelicalism, I suppose, is that you understand the workings of the evangelical subculture. I know, for example, that when my new book on evangelicals appears, the minions of the religious right will seek to discredit me rather than engage the substance of my arguments. The initial wave of criticism, as an old friend who has endured similar attacks reminded me, will be to deny that I am, in fact, really an evangelical Christian. When that fails — and I'll put up my credentials as an evangelical against anyone's! — the next approach will be some gratuitous personal attack: that I am a member of the academic elite, spokesman for the Northeastern establishment, misguided liberal, prodigal son, traitor to the faith, or some such. Another evangelical friend with political convictions similar to mine actually endured a heresy trial.
The evangelical subculture, which prizes conformity above all else, doesn't suffer rebels gladly, and it is especially intolerant of anyone with the temerity to challenge the shibboleths of the religious right. I understand that. Despite their putative claims to the faith, the leaders of the religious right are vicious toward anyone who refuses to kowtow to their version of orthodoxy, and their machinery of vilification strikes with ruthless, dispassionate efficiency. Longtime friends (and not a few family members) will shuffle uneasily around me and studiously avoid any sort of substantive conversation about the issues I raise — and then quietly strike my name from their Christmas-card lists. Circle the wagons. Brook no dissent.
And so, since my chances of being invited back to Edman Chapel have dropped from slim to none, I offer here an outline of what I would like to say to the students at Wheaton and, by extension, to evangelicals everywhere.
Evangelicals have come a long way since my visit to Edman Chapel in 1972. We have moved from cultural obscurity — almost invisibility — to becoming a major force in American society. Jimmy Carter's run for the presidency launched us into the national consciousness, but evangelicals abandoned Carter by the end of the 1970s, as the nascent religious right forged an alliance with the Republican Party.
In terms of cultural and political influence, that alliance has been a bonanza for both sides. The coalition dominates talk radio and controls a growing number of state legislatures and local school boards. It is seeking, with some initial success, to recast Hollywood and the entertainment industry. The Republicans have come to depend on religious-right voters as their most reliable constituency, and, with the Republicans firmly in command of all three branches of the federal government, leaders of the religious right now enjoy unprecedented access to power.
And what has the religious right done with its political influence? Judging by the platform and the policies of the Republican Party — and I'm aware of no way to disentangle the agenda of the Republican Party from the goals of the religious right — the purpose of all this grasping for power looks something like this: an expansion of tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, the continued prosecution of a war in the Middle East that enraged our longtime allies and would not meet even the barest of just-war criteria, and a rejiggering of Social Security, the effect of which, most observers agree, would be to fray the social-safety net for the poorest among us. Public education is very much imperiled by Republican policies, to the evident satisfaction of the religious right, and it seeks to replace science curricula with theology, thereby transforming students into catechumens.
America's grossly disproportionate consumption of energy continues unabated, prompting demands for oil exploration in environmentally sensitive areas. The Bush administration has jettisoned U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, which called on Americans to make at least a token effort to combat global warming. Corporate interests are treated with the kind of reverence and deference once reserved for the deity.
The Bible contains something like 2,000 references to the poor and the believer's responsibility for the poor. Sadly, that obligation seems not to have trickled down into public policy. On judicial matters, the religious right demands appointees who would diminish individual rights to privacy with regard to abortion. At the same time, it approves a corresponding expansion of presidential powers, thereby disrupting the constitutionally mandated system of checks and balances.
The torture of human beings, God's creatures — some guilty of crimes, others not — has been justified by the Bush administration, which also believes that it is perfectly acceptable to conduct surveillance on American citizens without putting itself to the trouble of obtaining a court order. Indeed, the chicanery, the bullying, and the flouting of the rule of law that emanates from the nation's capital these days make Richard Nixon look like a fraternity prankster.
Where does the religious right stand in all this? Following the revelations that the U.S. government exported prisoners to nations that have no scruples about the use of torture, I wrote to several prominent religious-right organizations. Please send me, I asked, a copy of your organization's position on the administration's use of torture. Surely, I thought, this is one issue that would allow the religious right to demonstrate its independence from the administration, for surely no one who calls himself a child of God or who professes to hear "fetal screams" could possibly countenance the use of torture. Although I didn't really expect that the religious right would climb out of the Republican Party's cozy bed over the torture of human beings, I thought perhaps they might poke out a foot and maybe wiggle a toe or two.
I was wrong. Of the eight religious-right organizations I contacted, only two, the Family Research Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy, answered my query. Both were eager to defend administration policies. "It is our understanding, from statements released by the Bush administration," the reply from the Family Research Council read, "that torture is already prohibited as a means of collecting intelligence data." The Institute on Religion and Democracy stated that "torture is a violation of human dignity, contrary to biblical teachings," but conceded that it had "not yet produced a more comprehensive statement on the subject," even months after the revelations. Its president worried that the "anti-torture campaign seems to be aimed exclusively at the Bush administration," thereby creating a public-relations challenge.
I'm sorry, but the use of torture under any circumstances is a moral issue, not a public-relations dilemma.
....article continues at link posted above
Hi, Jack.
Thx for that link. Randall Balmer wrote a great essay and it should be read by many on the religious right, or anyone else for that matter. He brought up many good things that should provoke an honest discussion amongst the interested.
The current radical evanglical-political power is so akin to the radical fundamentalist Muslim school of belief that it's uncanny, IMO.
Thx for that link. Randall Balmer wrote a great essay and it should be read by many on the religious right, or anyone else for that matter. He brought up many good things that should provoke an honest discussion amongst the interested.
The current radical evanglical-political power is so akin to the radical fundamentalist Muslim school of belief that it's uncanny, IMO.
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
These are the good old days. imho
There will be no end to this holy war that we have started. We could all wake up tommorw in a pile of smoke and ash. Meanwhile we have more important issues to debate.
There will be no end to this holy war that we have started. We could all wake up tommorw in a pile of smoke and ash. Meanwhile we have more important issues to debate.
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/prophecy/signs.htmlA Wall Street Journal headline read, "Millennium Fever: Prophets Proliferate, The End is Near." A New York Times book review began, "Some 50 million Americans share a belief that these are the last days." Even the Chicago Tribune ran a front-page story about the end times in a recent Sunday edition.
I've often wondered about these prophecies. Like the people of the Far East, China, India, plus the smaller countries in that region... these folks, for the most part, are not Judeo/Christian by any stretch of the imagination, clueless to these prophecies, the Book of Revelations a complete unknown. Are these folks going to be subjected to the same dismal end that the prophecies promise? If so, why? Why would this 'god' who 'spoke' with the major writers of the bible, not have anything to say to the Hindoos, the Confucianists, the Buddhists, Shinotist, Zoroastrians... the list is long.
Could this 'god' be speaking of the end of the 'World of Judeo/Christians' themselves? No mention of the peoples that populated the other areas of the, then, unknown world.
What about the Americas? North, Central and South natives that inhabit(ed) their lands? They certainly remeain blameless to not receiving these prophetic prophecies, do they not? As a matter of fact, these same peoples may very well have (or had) their own 'gods' speak of their own destinies in their 'holy teachings.'
Our world may appear to be small when it comes to transportation and communications of the times, but it truly is a large place when we picture bombs or even natural disasters bringing destruction and death to everyone. It sounds as though, if 'we' are going to die according to Biblical scriptures (read: the believer), then, dammit! everyone living human on earth will pay the same price!! I think that is an absurdist's attitude.
But the hardcore Bible-toting fundamentalists may very well end in revelatory death because their own beliefs are that strong. Ditto that to the hardcore Koran-toting fundamentalists. What we believe in the strongest is usually our destiny. We make our own futures.
Could this 'god' be speaking of the end of the 'World of Judeo/Christians' themselves? No mention of the peoples that populated the other areas of the, then, unknown world.
What about the Americas? North, Central and South natives that inhabit(ed) their lands? They certainly remeain blameless to not receiving these prophetic prophecies, do they not? As a matter of fact, these same peoples may very well have (or had) their own 'gods' speak of their own destinies in their 'holy teachings.'
Our world may appear to be small when it comes to transportation and communications of the times, but it truly is a large place when we picture bombs or even natural disasters bringing destruction and death to everyone. It sounds as though, if 'we' are going to die according to Biblical scriptures (read: the believer), then, dammit! everyone living human on earth will pay the same price!! I think that is an absurdist's attitude.
But the hardcore Bible-toting fundamentalists may very well end in revelatory death because their own beliefs are that strong. Ditto that to the hardcore Koran-toting fundamentalists. What we believe in the strongest is usually our destiny. We make our own futures.
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
Do you think Hitler might have been following his bliss?
Is Christianity a Jewish plot to enslave the white race?
It always comes back to the Hebrew children for me Cecil. Both sides in this holy war take off from that book of theirs.
The rest of the world is held hostage by their weapons.
Absurd? Yes I agree. . Everytime I see a pregnant woman I almost feel nauseous. Is it right to bring children into this world? Women are such optimists. I look at those pictures from, Darfur of starving women with starving babies trying to suckle at their breasts.
We don't know Cecil. It could be absurd, or it maybe we just can't see the big picture.
And did those women in Darfur have a choice about those babies, or were they just raped?
I am pretty much disgusted with men. I think it is a time for women to rise and shine. Lets kill off all the men. Except for me. I am a hell of a nice guy.
Is Christianity a Jewish plot to enslave the white race?
It always comes back to the Hebrew children for me Cecil. Both sides in this holy war take off from that book of theirs.
The rest of the world is held hostage by their weapons.
I think that is an absurdist's attitude
.How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!...Mathew?
Absurd? Yes I agree. . Everytime I see a pregnant woman I almost feel nauseous. Is it right to bring children into this world? Women are such optimists. I look at those pictures from, Darfur of starving women with starving babies trying to suckle at their breasts.
We don't know Cecil. It could be absurd, or it maybe we just can't see the big picture.
And did those women in Darfur have a choice about those babies, or were they just raped?
I am pretty much disgusted with men. I think it is a time for women to rise and shine. Lets kill off all the men. Except for me. I am a hell of a nice guy.
Hitler following his bliss..? Nah... following his hatred.
Hebrew children. I doubt if they're any different from other children. Are they?
Christianity is as ill-followed and misunderstood as most other religions. If we destroy ourselves, there is only ignorance to blame.
"The rest of the world is held hostage by their weapons." I'm pretty sure the pygmies, the people in Patagonia and the nomadic Mongolians are doing okay.
"How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!...Mathew?" There's an important thing to remember about anyone that speaks of the future - they are not in the Now. Too bad. They miss out on what life is really all about.
"Everytime I see a pregnant woman I almost feel nauseous. Is it right to bring children into this world?" Why not? Nothing new about that is there? Regeneration is the only constant. Think of it this way - maybe one of those kids will grow up having a better solution to our world's problems. You never know.
"...maybe we just can't see the big picture." Re: 'Now' (above). 'Now' is the biggest picture of all.
"And did those women in Darfur have a choice about those babies, or were they just raped?" I can't answer that one, Jack. But don't pass judgement until you have the right answer. It's only fair.
"Lets kill off all the men. Except for me. I am a hell of a nice guy." When the only two left are you and me, are you willing to take my life? That might not make you such a nice guy.
Hebrew children. I doubt if they're any different from other children. Are they?
Christianity is as ill-followed and misunderstood as most other religions. If we destroy ourselves, there is only ignorance to blame.
"The rest of the world is held hostage by their weapons." I'm pretty sure the pygmies, the people in Patagonia and the nomadic Mongolians are doing okay.
"How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!...Mathew?" There's an important thing to remember about anyone that speaks of the future - they are not in the Now. Too bad. They miss out on what life is really all about.
"Everytime I see a pregnant woman I almost feel nauseous. Is it right to bring children into this world?" Why not? Nothing new about that is there? Regeneration is the only constant. Think of it this way - maybe one of those kids will grow up having a better solution to our world's problems. You never know.
"...maybe we just can't see the big picture." Re: 'Now' (above). 'Now' is the biggest picture of all.
"And did those women in Darfur have a choice about those babies, or were they just raped?" I can't answer that one, Jack. But don't pass judgement until you have the right answer. It's only fair.
"Lets kill off all the men. Except for me. I am a hell of a nice guy." When the only two left are you and me, are you willing to take my life? That might not make you such a nice guy.
-
stilltrucking
- Posts: 20646
- Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
- Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas
The corporate greed is just the icing on the cake. I don't know what is going on cecil. I don't know if we can actualy destroy ourselves or not. Even if this does turn into a nuclear war. Stephen Hawkins says if we can hold out another hundred years we must colonize space for the species to continue.
War, global warming, a comet, or whatever, he seemed pretty gloomy about our chances. I wish I had WD's optimism.
War, global warming, a comet, or whatever, he seemed pretty gloomy about our chances. I wish I had WD's optimism.
Cec,
thanks to the globalization of Christian missionaries, the peoples of every part of the world are now not ignorant of Christian teachings and prophesies. there's no excuse for not converting. you're all on notice from the Big Guy upstairs.
i saw a documentary on t.v. a while ago about a group of self-righteous Christians doing God's work by spreading Christ's word (and t-shirts, sneakers, radios, etc.) to the poor primitive souls in the Amazon. fuckin insane shit. like this one group that had the wonderful Christian merciful forgiveness and courage to go back even after one or two leaders of the first mission were killed by the natives!
thanks to the globalization of Christian missionaries, the peoples of every part of the world are now not ignorant of Christian teachings and prophesies. there's no excuse for not converting. you're all on notice from the Big Guy upstairs.
i saw a documentary on t.v. a while ago about a group of self-righteous Christians doing God's work by spreading Christ's word (and t-shirts, sneakers, radios, etc.) to the poor primitive souls in the Amazon. fuckin insane shit. like this one group that had the wonderful Christian merciful forgiveness and courage to go back even after one or two leaders of the first mission were killed by the natives!
Bush is not a true believer. he certainly professes his beliefs, and shit maybe he does hear God's voice talkin to him. could be a hallucinogenic flashback. Bush is an actor, like Reagan, just not as smooth. he uses religion cuase its convenient. the same is true of most violent self-avowed jihadists. they use the book because its there. if its not, they write one to use to justify their violence. culture = danger. you can blame religion, or blame science, after all how would there be guns and bombs without science. all cultures, European, Middle Eastern, religious, scientific, economic, militaristic, whatever, can be perverted to serve the ends of sick killers like Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden or Rumsfeld.
the only way out of the mess is to ban all men from politics. matriarchy is the wave of the future, if there is one.
the only way out of the mess is to ban all men from politics. matriarchy is the wave of the future, if there is one.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest