Hey gang just wanted to let you know that Mel Gibson is coming out with a new movie about the Pre-Columbian Mayans. I think we should drop him afew letters to make sure that slingers are properly represented in the Mayan army and the opposition armies. Who knows we might get a technical advisor slot out of it. ;D

souds cool  :D someone should make a note of this

Who's good at formal letters fellas? come on speak up!

well we could make it so mel doesnt even try the movie if we let english do it. so maybe TS? he is pretty good at writeing :)

Ha, TS is certainly a good writer, but if he writes like he has with the political stuff I fear that they may not understand all of it. Unfortunately I have a lot of experience in writing formal letters, but perhpas this knowledge could be useful. If we got a list of points to make, I could weave them into a letter, and let you guys fix it up.

wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2006 at 10:20pm:

Unfortunately I have a lot of experience in writing formal letters

Why is it unfortunate that you have experience in this? ???

most formal letters that I wrote were written against my will (parents or school forcing me). But in the end it has been very helpful.

I suggest a collaborative effort, I honestly know nothing of Mayan slings, but if we can make a list of important information, I could help pull them all together.

The only leters i ever wrote where the one that let me miss sport ;D

Well if you guys are serious about doing this... I can volunteer to do what I can.

I am a student, I can try to speak to a professor about it, and maybe spend some time at a library. My time is a little limited, so first things first.
What information are we looking for?

Who were these people?
What type of slings and materials did they use?
When is this movie (Time frame)  taking place?
etc.

We need to know what He is lookinging for, and if it is indeed applicable.

We need to be looking for answers to specific questions. Hopefully we can use this stuff to add to the Wiki or PG.

-Unsapien

I think whatever we do it has got to be done fast.  I don't think a detailed letter with lots of information is needed, Mel doesn't have the time to read it anyway.  Let's just state that slingers were an important part of the Mayan army and that there should be footage of them in the movie, if further information is need we are more than happy to help.  

If we spent too much time deciding who should write and what should be written, chances are it'll be too late.  Hollywood wouldn't change course once they start making the movie.

I think it's already too late. Usually by the time you see a preview, the movie has already been in production for more than a year. Most of the work left for the film is probibly being done in the editing room right now.

I don't think there has been a preview, has there?  Have you seen one?
 It's probably not too late.  Even if it is, we may as well write something.

From what I have seen of the movie, it does not portray the natives in a good light. Their main interest ( according to Mel) is capturing people for human sacrifice and cannibalism.

Mel Gibson seems to have a thing about portraying people in a bad light, and as one of the offended groups, I can speak for us all and say, we don't like, Aussie.  Insults the Jews (Passion of the Christ), the English (twice - Braveheart, The Patriot), and now the Mayans, for no obvious reasons.  Why the English are Nazi rapists is unclear, and why the Jews seem extremely randomly vindictive, sticking out amongst the other randomly vindictive characters of the movie, is not explained.

I think it should be a collaborative effort, although I would volunteer myself to pen up a draft to which we all cold addd or edit as we see fit. I'm an English major right now, with a focus in Professional writing. And Uncle Mel owes me a favour for "that time." He knows what I mean.

Well, this is from a man that has said, " I love my wife, but she's going to Hell for being a Protestant." He said this to the press, no less.

I did hear that there is an easter egg in the previews for the movie that in one frame, literally, just one, he is shown in a checked shirt, face painted, smoking a cigarette and standing at the head of a line of warriors with a beard! That is someting I would have to see!

So, what do we all want this letter to say, exactly? Fair and unbiased depictions of the natives? More screen time given to slingers and make sure they use proper form? Ideas?

The movie is called Apocalypto, for any who may be interested.

Many of the original inhabitants of central America *did* capture others for human sacrafice. If you need a movie to throw in an equal number of "good" characters of a group to counteract the "bad" characters of the group, just to reassure yourself after the movie that not all members of said group are "bad," you're really not worth pandering too.

wrote on Mar 26^th, 2006 at 11:13pm:

Many of the original inhabitants of central America *did* capture others for human sacrafice. If you need a movie to throw in an equal number of "good" characters of a group to counteract the "bad" characters of the group, just to reassure yourself after the movie that not all members of said group are "bad," you're really not worth pandering too.

i think here our friend has a point.. in Every movie the bad guys are made vindictively more evil..and there will be a lot less good people on that side :) when making a movie you must create a feeling of pure Hate towards the bad guys and a feeling of desparation and pity towards the good guys so if you would put good natured people amongst the bad guys that would sortoff create a mixture of feelings towards them... then again i can see your point english that you feel severly wrong done because of the way your ancestors where depicted.. And i'm pretty damn sure that if mel made a movie about belgium colonizing congo i would be pretty damn p/o as well cause we belgians would not come out of That one with a good name :P lol


Btw

wrote on Mar 26^th, 2006 at 10:51am:

Well, this is from a man that has said, " I love my wife, but she's going to Hell for being a Protestant." He said this to the press, no less.

Your kidding right ? :o

the problem with this kind of films is that it's makers do not take full responibility for it.

they say - it's just a film. but that's not true, it's much more than just a film. a film that is set in some historical period will create an atitude an oppinions for wast majority of ppl, for the given period and the sides shown in there.
because ppl are lazy and they won't bother with checking of other sources - they have just seen it on film, right?

wrote on Mar 26^th, 2006 at 11:13pm:

Many of the original inhabitants of central America *did* capture others for human sacrafice...

Yes, but as well, it is in full responsibility of the filmmaker to portray accurately the subject matter and many of the south american peoples were amongst the most advanced in the world for their time, surpassing even some of the achievements of contemporary people in Europe, North America, Africa and Asia.

There are such things are unbiased films, or at least, films that do show some positive sides to the "bad" guys. You could show some reality.  British soldiers in the Revolutionary War were not heartless murderers.  There was a cavalry officer, Banastre Tarleton, who gained a reputation for no quarter, but he was an exception rather than a rule, and he was easily - easily - matched by the things done by the Americans.  Why not show some balance?

no one is saying all the english are evil sadistic murderers ;) but the one mel's character faced in the partriot was one of those exeptions of being Really evil and liking his job a little too much :)

it's much more enjoyable to be slaughtering pure evil guys. the audience tends to be happier that way.

most movies that show an equal balance and blur the line between good and bad are usually called stuff like "bold, artsy, new, intriguing perspective"  They also give something for some people who consider themselves smart something to blabber mindlessly about... (not that some movies can't be seriously analyzed, but most people don't do that)

according to that, I don't see why hollywood dosn't make more 8).... actually this is becoming more and more true: around WWII films portrayed germans and japanese as savages whose sole goal in life was to murder YOUR family. Nowawadays I wouldn't be surprised to see a film glorifying alqueda or Stalin... Whether this is good or bad can be argued, but i'm just puttin it out there.

if you want something realistic but with actual cinemetography, watch the movies on the history channel. a lot of them are fairly accurate, and there is momentary commentary to discuss what was real and what wasnt.

well on that ww2 thing i have to say if anyone would care to watch it band of brothers is a pretty good show on the subject And shows both the good and bad in both parties (take it from a person who doens't care about those wars in the slightest :P that period in time is a little to close to home in my opinion ;) )

I'm planning on seeing the movie, I will of course reserve judgement until then.

My initial response to concerns over portraying the natives in a bad light... Supposedly the movie takes place before Spanish or other groups interact with them. Since it is a movie, it presumably has a story. A story requires not only bad guys, but good guys as well.

Therefor it's not too much of a streach to conclude that perhaps the natives who are the "good guys" will indeed be shown in a good light.

Quote:

no one is saying all the english are evil sadistic murderers  but the one mel's character faced in the partriot was one of those exeptions of being Really evil and liking his job a little too much

Pretty much all the English troops, and indeed, English/Loyalists in general, were portrayed as either evil, or really, really naive and stupid.  So yes, Mel Gibson is saying this.  Similarly, in Braveheart, the English are the unfeeling poofs who rape the Scottish women and trap pretty French ladies in relationships with gay men.
 And... "good guys and bad guys"?  Come on, I thought maybe society was beyond labelling people, or things, ideas, whatever, as good or bad?  Nothing is intrinsically... anything.  Certainly not intrinsically good or bad, especially not people.  Even Hitler and Mao were products of the circumstances in which they lived, their bodies and minds...

i had too label it someway or another  :'( imo i just felt very bad towards the guy that killed his son andd thats really the only guy i hated in the entire movie  :-/ maybe this was a beter way to say it from the begining

wrote on Mar 28^th, 2006 at 8:48am:

And... "good guys and bad guys"?  Come on, I thought maybe society was beyond labelling people, or things, ideas, whatever, as good or bad?  Nothing is intrinsically... anything.  Certainly not intrinsically good or bad, especially not people.  Even Hitler and Mao were products of the circumstances in which they lived, their bodies and minds...

True, though most people tend to be happier thinking in terms of good and bad, it's easier that way. And so that's the way that most movies are made....

it's because B/W pictures require less memory than grayscale ones  :P

Ok,

Statments like "Good bad who's to tell?" are very dangerous. I do believe actions, can be cruel, or humain. These are solid real things. We shouldn't be doubting if they exist, but which motivations triggered them.

Do not settle for, "Well who's to say what is good or bad, after all what's good for you might be bad for me and who's to say?". Truth is real, 2 + 3 = 5 this is not a relative thing.  However if you do not know what 2 is, if you do not know how to define it, you are left to the mercy of those who define it for you. Most people are not able to come to these true conclusions. They exist outside our own paradim, but being able to work them out with solid premises and conclusions are the key to seeing them.

I will refrain from monologing, but there is much to be said about this topic. This is not however the place.

Are we still doing this?
I have not heard any suggestions.

-Unsapien

Regardless of all the philosophical stuff... if you're going to write a story (with people in it) you're going to have to have some of them protagonists and others antagonists. Otherwise you'll have yourself a very boring story (if it could even be called that).

I guess I am to understand we are not doing this.

Oh well  :-/

-Unsapien

Well, if hind sight is worth having at all, then one thing is certain.

If we continue to unfailingly allow ourselves to be swept into whichever corner is deemed appropriate by elitists and their obligatory servants, in order to be able to discuss the most important things....then 'we', whoever 'we' are....have already lost.  


And from what I hear, there are less witnesses with cameras at those 'corners' which might catch any acts of atrocity commited upon those who gather there for such purpose.  Imagine a modern version of Mel's movie: "The Patriot"......


Her majesty's secret service, were it endowed with the satellite, communications, and other logistics technology of today would wait until her intelligence indicated the numbers were right and soon have guided missiles to nearly every "Liberty tree" there was.


No.  In this late hour, the truth best be shared in the light of day....not under the shade of tree nor in the dark of night.


For those with eyes to see.... the 'Emperor's Clothes' has leapt from the pages of object lesson fables, to become an all too real rain of ashes the likes of which Orwell, a bottle of the cheapest wine and his nightmares could not have produced.


Unsapien said:


Quote:

I will refrain from monologing, but there is much to be said about this topic. This is not however the place.

One could infer that this is the place to talk about virtually anything but the most important things. Every year, things go from bad to worse regarding the future of this world.  


If not now, when?  If not here....where?   Peter Pan's never never land is the puffy cloud place of choice for most.


So very many today think: "Keep it light and we'll be alright"......


Take the 'doom and gloom' somewhere else.....


I say, plead with one another to face it now, while there's a smidgeon of time left to become worthy of the title:  "activist".  Ego and artifice be damned!


Before, inevitably, one is faced with the unavoidable consequences of nihilistic, self serving pacifistic ideals. By using the term: "activist",  I am not advocating guerilla warfare, terrorism, or even the fanciful and alluring notion of raising a 'slinger's army' to stage paint filled balloon grafitti raids!


We'd best be about the acquisition and sharing of absolute truth, in a manner representative of it's importance.  


The absolute truth is coming not to a theater near you....(unless perhaps you subscribe to the military definition)....it is instead soon going to be whistling through the corridors of the heart of every man, woman and child on this planet....Be they empty stone, or soft, warm and caring......and the result of the outpouring of His spirit.....and what is accomplished as a result....will divide and unite us all.


We, no matter where we may go.... will no longer be afforded a long and cozy escape into hobbytown.  Unless we are willing to uncomfortably stretch the definition of the word:  Hobby.


Such a simple concept as speaking absolute truth in the faces of tyranny and defeatist relativism, when gainfully employed.......is what some might call a 'noble' act, and in truth.....pre-empts nobility and honor.....and is a true patriarch to those ideals.


And it is more rewarding, dangerous and effective than any jaded, physical acts of frustration could ever be.


"The pen is mightier than the sword"........is the brother to:


"In a world full of lies, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."


And that's the absolute truth.



God bless this, the year of the storm.




TS

Quote:

Ok, Statments like "Good bad who's to tell?" are very dangerous. I do believe actions, can be cruel, or humain. These are solid real things. We shouldn't be doubting if they exist, but which motivations triggered them.   Do not settle for, "Well who's to say what is good or bad, after all what's good for you might be bad for me and who's to say?". Truth is real, 2 + 3 = 5 this is not a relative thing.  However if you do not know what 2 is, if you do not know how to define it, you are left to the mercy of those who define it for you. Most people are not able to come to these true conclusions. They exist outside our own paradim, but being able to work them out with solid premises and conclusions are the key to seeing them. I will refrain from monologing, but there is much to be said about this topic. This is not however the place. Are we still doing this?   I have not heard any suggestions. -Unsapien

 It is important to instill hear the concept of Universal Observer.  I give it this name; it doesn't actually exist, it is not analogous to "God" and it can't actually observe, this being the activity of one given life.
 The Universal Observer sees all (without eyes) without emotions.  No chemicals run through its (non-existent) body to persuade it that one thing is good for it and another bad.
 The Universal Observer therefore sees things in their own true light.
 There were, around 100 years ago, tribes of headhunters on many Pacific islands.  They believed that it was necessary to take heads in order to survive, in order to have a fruitful existence.  This activity is seen as abhorrent nowadays, but their societies were around for a very long time, and they saw their activities as "good".  Who is to say they are wrong, and anyone else is right?
 The reason "good" and "bad" exist (or in reality, do not exist) is simply due to the chemicals in your body; you associate certain actions with the chemicals (such as seratonin and all those happy endorphins) that cause happiness; these actions are "good".  No action is intrinsically good or bad, and "seen" from the perspective of of the Universal Observer, who lives, or does not live, outside the ideas of time and space, there is no distinction between a bacterium and a human, a metamorphic rock and your mother.  4,000,000,000 years ago, your ancestors came into being - the Universal Observer "saw" this and did not assign it a bearing on the moral compass.
 2+3=5?  There is no 2!  There are no fives!  What is this nonsense I speak?
 Each material thing is in and of itself, and not in and of itself.  The atom is made of neutrons, protons, electrons; these are made of quarks; quarks are made of strings of energy.  They are all different!  There is no 2.
 There are no facts!
Be glad of it.

English,  I respect your particular vantage point on the matter.  Having said that,  it is my personal obligation to state the following:




Quote:

"There are no facts. "and "Be glad of it."

 


He says!........


Ghengis Khan, Lennin, and Hitler and a host of like minded others living today absolutely rejoice in it!  


"I don't have to answer to anyone....even myself....yippee"!   Let the blood letting begin......



Consider the following hypothetical scenario. A nomadic man, an outdoorsman who has never seen a hand made dwelling other than a tent......walks through a strange new forest and sees a dilapidated old castle.   Even that one is able to see that it did not just accidentally happen by the most lengthy, perverse string of accidents...each stone shaping itself, placing itself just where it was needed.  Numerous keystones without which, each one, the structure becomes unstable and falls.....This simple man wanders about admiring the creative ingenuity and obvious earmarks of purposeful design.


This is in large part, why we, many of us,  still believe in God and the commandments He laid down for us.  Because even a simple little child can see and appreciate these mind boggling truths.


To give the glory to some impossibly long and contiguous string of 'accidental' and harmonious unwitting collusions between particles and single celled organisms.......


Well that......


That is just a plain 're-education camp' style cop out.


In the opinion of the simple nomad, a child, and the bulk of the world's 'simpleton's among the majority of which, can see 'the writing on the wall'....


Be that a simple cell wall, the inner wall of one's heart.....


Or even the rear wall of the eyeball, the retina....


It's about recognizing the Grand Creator and His purpose in putting us here.  It's about seeing what's right in front of us....rather than shunning what, for some, are painful truths.


The human eyeball is fantastic......and to attribute that and the myriad other amazing earthly examples of unfathomable engineering feats to eons of unwitting and unintelligent collaboration of tiny cells, atoms and molecules is, to put it simply.....


Like strapping a blindfold over a child's eyes, and trying to force him to believe it evolved there.


Just too many miracles.  


And in the end, not even the most ardent 'Ex nihilo evolutionist' will succede in hiding from them all.  Even, sadly, after it is has become too late for such a one.   




They don't call them "Genetic Programming" and "Genetic Codes" for nothing.


And to offend their Omnipotent programmer by attempting to relegate Him to the impossibly low level of the longest string of intergalactic accidents possibly conceivable......


Is an escapist fantasy from which, for too many........sadly,  all avenues for escape provided them remain ignored.


english stated:


Quote:

It is important to instill hear the concept of Universal Observer.  I give it this name; it doesn't actually exist, it is not analogous to "God" and it can't actually observe, this being the activity of one given life.  The Universal Observer sees all (without eyes) without emotions.  No chemicals run through its (non-existent) body to persuade it that one thing is good for it and another bad.  The Universal Observer therefore sees things in their own true light.

???


If you don't mind,  you may keep your 'universal observer' which has no amazing and perfectly crafted eyes with which to see.  

Although it seems obvious it's too late......For he's been on the loose for quite awhile!  I see him now, leaping through the halls of nearly every 'institution of higher learning' in the world....."seeking whomever he may devour".



Sadly, what a feeding frenzy it is.



The consequences of such a nihilisitic concept as you espouse, english, are great indeed.  As the world is finally coming to witness, and in greater fashion than at any time before, and indeed never to occur afterward.




Either that or we are all just a part of the.....


'Meatrix'.


http://www.themeatrix.com/

http://www.themeatrix2.com/




Peace,



TS

Again, I do not believe this is the place.

Such volatile ideas should be expressed with an ear to the dissenting voice, face to face, and with considering expressions. Not simply with '...' or icons that try to denote complex expressions  ???

The possibility for misinterpretations is very likely.

Nero-transmitters, post conventional morality, or even why thorns were pulled through a kings lips for his people; are concepts which are more complex than flashy phrasings can capture in such brevity.

If this is indeed deemed the appropriate forum, then I fear I might avoid such 'engagements'.  

Escapism though it may be, it is not the shrinking from such grandiose writings, or heated debates, but rather a parting from the daily engagements we experience during our time spent away from the monitor.

I believe such hobbies are not only permissible but necessary to restore the 'Active' mind. The Ability to approach a discourse with a tranquil mind avoids self-confusion, and heads off melancholy. This is extremely valuable, and I am unwilling to stretch the definition of my moments of peace beyond this restorative realm.

-Unsapien

By the way, about Mel's movie??????? :-/

Has anyone actually written to him yet?

anyone check out spoiler sites yet?  find out exactly what is supposed to happen?  maybe find a copy of the script?  anyways...

Quote:

This is extremely valuable, and I am unwilling to stretch the definition of my moments of peace beyond this restorative realm.

Yes, true enough.....good luck with that in the days ahead.  My apologies for any present and former verbal missteps to those relative few among us for whom such true life 'engagements' are of vocational proportion.


The main thrust of my assertions was to highlight that such respite from very real and impending, historically supported social eventualities, as provided in part through the form of various hobbies.....including ours, can and often does serve to simply postpone and sharpen their personal effects.


To those constantly braving the fray, facing ridicule and much more, simply to pry a paltry few stubborn eyelids open..... I salute you....there are far too few of you!



"Those who do not stand for something, can usually be counted upon to fall for anything."


And our world seems to be in a somnambulistic sprint to don one rather large, collective jumpsuit.  It's going to be a tight fit.  I hope it stretches.


TS



P.S.  Braveheart rules.

wrote on Apr 1^st, 2006 at 11:53am:

There are no facts!

...And that's a fact!

Quote:

P.S.  Braveheart rules

now your starting stuff ::)

Did I say Braveheart ruled?  Blech!  I meant 'Fawlty towers' and 'Monty Python' rule equally......as coregents.



TS


:-[

LOL. I was about to say. I don't see how you could call yourself an Anglophile and claim braveheart as a great movie in the same breath. I for one, love Braveheart. My mom tells me that we have family on her mother's side from the Wallace clan a few hundred years ago.

braveheart was a pretty good movie..neverthe less i prefered Hero or Hous of flying daggers  ;D more cool fightscene's Lol

Quote:

I don't see how you could call yourself an Anglophile and claim braveheart as a great movie in the same breath.

I see the juxtaposition......it's a delicate balance really, if one picks and chooses, he or she can skim the cream from nearly any culture.


I am really more of a Saxonophile.   I'll be you didn't know that Saxons....of Anglo Saxon fame....got their name from Isaac in the bible.


God told Abraham that "In Isaac shall thy seed be called".   Confirming to him that his lineage would get their name from his son, Isaac.   It was customary throughout the ages for cultures of all kinds to shorten names for easier pronunciation.......and just as "jew" is a shortened form of Judean.....Isaac's sons became Saacson's and then Saxons.


Caucasians.....get their name from the Caucusus mountains, where the Israelites were taken into captivity by the Assyrians.


Modern day British Isles encompass the "Isles of Tarshish" of old.  Many care not a whit that their heritage can be traced back to our Israelite ancestors!  Most aren't even aware that the word:  "British" comes to us from Hebrew and literally means:  "Covenant Man". And it's no coincidence that the Lion is their national symbol.....as they comprised largely, the tribe of Judah whose symbol was the lion.


Denmark, modern form of 'Danemerke' comprised largely the Israelite tribe of Dan, a warlike tribe who left their mark wherever they went.


http://reluctant-messenger.com/judahs_sceptre_304.htm


America, the eagle......Russia, the "reds" (ancestor Esau whose name was change to Edom, meaning "red" because he traded his inheritance for a bowl of red pottage!) Their symbol, the bear.


All the main players on the world stage are acting to a script written long ago.  You might say it's in our blood.


http://www.missiontoisrael.org/gods-covenant-people/tableofcontents.php


http://www.missiontoisrael.org/ishmael,edom,israel.php


http://www.missiontoisrael.org/mystery-of-gentiles/index.php



Many among we who love to sling have more in common with the slingers of the bible than some might care to fully investigate!  


"Those who do not remember the mistakes of the past, are condemned to repeat them."



TS

Erm... not to be picky or anything, but "Denmark" and "Saxons" have pretty well established etymologies that are alternative to the ones presented above...

Welcome back Tech.

Thias

Alternative, yes.  Though thorough inspection provides ample room for the descriptor:  'Augmentative'.


Many a foundation is, in turn, situated upon another.   And etymological cycles, much like human 'progress', indeed.....the cycles of history.....have a way of ending back near the beginning.....


A testament to the fact that "man dominates man to his injury."  


And after the 'heated prosecutorial arguments' in this cosmic court case wind to a close......any vestige of remaining doubt some may have previously harbored regarding God's right to rule His own creation as He so desires, will have proved unfounded.
 


Good to be around.  Thanks, Matthias.



TS

 It is quite difficult to find two completely different racial types as Saxons/Angles/Jutes/Frisians and Hebrews.
 It's also interesting how the various tribes of Israel, that is to say, Semitic speakers, managed to master the arts of navigation to colonise and name so many widely scattered places; and then change not only their language, but the family that their language comes from.
 Sorry, Techstuf.  It just flies in the already windblown face of the majority of etymological/linguistic/anthropological fact to say that Europe is wholely made up of Jewish tribes.  The national symbol of Britain is the lion, not because of a Jewish connection, but because three lions were the symbol of Richard I, the Lionheart, who was not even British.
 Also: "Saacsons" does not make sense, because "son" is not the word for "son" in ancient Hebrew.  Similarly, it is not possible to use the words "Anglophile" and "Saxonophile" interchangeably.  Anglophile refers to a love of English culture, began by the first Germanic inhabitants, the Jutes and Frisians, continuing with the introduction of almost every single group of people in the world to contribute to our cultural melting pot, and extending to the Anglophone colonies and their cultures.   Saxonophile refers to a love/lover of the culture of Sachsen, in northern Germany, or of "Saxon" culture.  The word Saxon in fact comes from the seax, which historians know is the name for the characteristic Germanic "Saxon" tribal knife.
 It's a shame, because it's a very interesting theory, and one that shows how all humans are essentially one and the same, derived from the same.  We are, of course, all the same, and all sorts of nice evidence backs this up; but the time scales are so much longer than from the formation of the 12 Tribes of Israel as to discount entirely the theory.
 Sorry.

also, correct me if I'm wrong but weren't the russians called the the "reds" because of the colour red which they used in their flag and took to symbolise themselves, as in the red colour of the chinese flag and the Soviet flag? And Russia does come from the name of Rus tribe, that settled the area to be known as Russia (Ruses land)

Yes, that too is what I thought.  Red is the colour, as we know, of communism.  The colour of the Russian royalty was white (hence, in the revolution, the Whites versus the Reds), and the Russian flag before the revolution was the same one it is now - white, then blue, and red at the bottom.  The flag represents the old Duchy of Moscow, and is based on the coat-of-arms; red for St George, wearing white armour and a blue cape.  Red, in fact, has very little to do with Russia.  The bear does, though - although it is also the symbol for Berlin, Bern, Warwickshire, and numerous other European locations.
 It is possible to draw any number of cultural comparisons to support a theory.  One could say that ancient Sumerians mastered the waves and became Austronesian - based on the use of the word "pana" for "bow" in Sumerian and almost all Austronesian languages; or that the old Hopewell society of native Americans in the eastern woodlands is descended from southern Indian groups, because both revered snakes.  These theories are just as strong - just as tenuous - as the ones presented.

By the way, Mels Movie??? :-/......................And I think from a historical perspective Braveheart made about as much sense as having the SAS paint themselves blue.

Oh yes, it was about as accurate a representation of Scots-English relations in the middle ages as "Enter the Dragon" was an accurate depiction of Hong Kong in the 1970s, or James Bond movies are accurate in showing the life of a British secret agent.  Princess Isabelle, in the film played by Sophie Marceau, never met William Wallace; this is certain.  Therefore, the romance bit of the "historical-romance" genre can be discarded.
 What should also have been explained was that it was essentially a completely futile act, to fight for independence.  Scotland's economy suffered due to severance from England. In 1607, James I (VI) became King of England, making him king of Scotland and England, although this did not unite the countries wholely.  Throughout the 17th century, Scotland experienced severe economic problems again because of trying to finance England's wars on the continent, and in trying to join the race for empire in 1698 with the Darien venture, ruined themselves due again to incompetency.  The project destroyed the economy of Scotland.  Scotland was forced thereafter to wholeheartedly join with England, Ireland and the principality of Wales, in 1706, to form the United Kingdom.  Scottish freedom didn't last and was dangerous to its own country.  Celebrating it in cinematic form with an Australian playing the lead and using it to his own English hating ends is a similarly ridiculous idea.

It is one's duty and right to revisit the atrocities of which the leaders over any 'civilised' society have proved capable.  Be they English, American, French, Australian, German, etc.......And is most appropo to the situation we find ourselves in today.



Given the attitudes so prevalent in the society of today....I am reminded of the famous Barbara Bush quote seen here:  


http://z.about.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/7/Z/barbara_bush_beautiful.jpg



Regarding the origins of the cultures holding great power today, there will soon be no question.....their destinies long ago foretold.  




http://www.artisanpublishers.com/cgi-bin/ARTstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=ERC00710


http://www.ancientmanuscripts.com/books/tracing_our_ancestors.htm


http://www.artisanpublishers.com/cgi-bin/ARTstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=HS00104


http://www.missiontoisrael.org/it-matters.php


http://www.artisanpublishers.com/cgi-bin/ARTstore.cgi





There is, at least for me, plenty of evidence by which to identify the players on the world stage,  Question is.....will they live up (or in most cases down) to their heritage?  God's command to Israel was to be a 'servant' race, living His principles to show others the way back to Him.  Power corrupts.


No wonder He is become so wrathful with her.


Her blessings matter to the enemies of Israel.  And when it's become too late, it will matter to her as well, blind or not.


The prophecies will not go unfulfilled.  And as we are apportioned relatively little time left.....our world will see His judgements sooner than later.


And for those with knowledge of His promises, this year will prove to be a year in which His wrath does not go unnoticed.  Although for some with such knowledge, it will likely simply be a year of uncomfortable coincidences.



TS

William Wallce was essentially a glorified bandit. If I follow TS thinking correctly if Polish people are called Poles then people from Holland should be called Holes. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Holes!


A hollow argument, indeed..... ;)



Quote:

William Wallce was essentially a glorified bandit

Yes, and to some, George Washington was a bigger one for stealing the king's new backyard.


Steal from a 'greater' man and you are a bandit....steal from a 'lesser' man and you are a nobleman.


Which is why, in this upside down world, common criminals, even first time petty thieves routinely serve greater sentences than corporate raiders who callously, and deviously ruin hundreds or thousands of lives.


The more things change, the more they stay the same.


To which the world will bear uncomfortable witness....as it moves into it's endgame.



TS

;D                    Hey Tech, what does that make Columbus?

wrote on Apr 4^th, 2006 at 6:27am:

;D                    Hey Tech, what does that make Columbus?

that must make him a hero of some kind i guess.. won't be heroworshipped by me mind ::)

Quote:

It is one's duty and right to revisit the atrocities of which the leaders over any 'civilised' society have proved capable.  Be they English, American, French, Australian, German, etc.......And is most appropo to the situation we find ourselves in today.

Then let's revisit the subject of the various sackings of York and all the border towns by Scots shall we?  At least on a par with anything England has done to Scotland.

 
Quote:

There is, at least for me, plenty of evidence by which to identify the players on the world stage,

Oh yes, of course there is.  Around 4,000,000,000 ya (years ago), some lovely amino acids got together and made some equally delightful proteins.  The proteins started shacking up, and you know what they made?  That's right - a really caring, sharing type of thing, a single celled lifeform!  This guy shared so much, he actually cut himself in half - no, seriously - and shared himself.  Wow.  And thus life was.  And each time these little guys divided, they changed a little.  Every so tiny changes.  This was caused by some great everyday spice, called DNA.  When that changes, so does everything else.  Amazing, huh?  Then, over billions of years - you actually physically can't imagine how long - there were produced, after going through too many changes, designs, prototypes and other whosits to mention, there came about the mammals.  Lovely guys, not quite so generous as the bacteria, but still pretty sweet.  They subdivided, as they gave birth (and these guys were some of the creatures that invented modern sex!), into all the different mammalian groups we see today - sea mammals, rodents, you name it.  And then there were primates.
 Now these things were no different from others, but they ended up, after around about 5,000,000 years, dividing into loads of different forms.  They started off in old Africa (and it was old) living in small groups, scavenging.  Some left Africa, some moved to Asia, some to old Europe, and at around 1,000,000 ya, there were groups of these primates living all over the shop.  About 250,000 years ago, homo sapiens sapiens was on the brink of arrival.  Mixed up chap, too bright for his own good sometimes, but nevertheless, pretty special.  Starts colonising everywhere, killing and quite often eating some of the other primate groups... Develops these things called "advanced societies".  They all try to work for the good of the group, Darwinism be damned.  They had moved on a lot from the early primates, not scavenging anymore, but hunting, and using lots of pretty tools.  At around 10,000 BCE, there came a thing called the "agricultural revolution".  They all started staying put, planting things, keeping other mammals in wooded enclosures.  Soon, they needed places to exchange their animals and plants - because their diets weren't now varied enough to provide all of what they needed, due to their now settled lives.  The first town was developed, Jericho, about 7,000BCE.  Although there are still hunter gatherers left out there, then and now, in modern societies, we tend not to give much of a crap about them, so let's concentrate on these few farmers.  People in other areas see these farmers and think wow, if only I had a plough.  They all start farming.  By now, of course, (in fact, around 70,000 years before now), these homo sapiens sapiens had all changed appearances, and all looked completely different.  There were yellow organisms and black organisms and pale, white organisms - and they all shared and made wars with each other.  And they developed some interesting societies from the far reaches of the globe to where they'd all begun, in Africa.  All were different, and nearly all started to create new things - "religion" and "philosophy" - in the years between about 900 and 200 BCE, the "axial age".  This is when most modern religions were born.
 In any case, being all of roughly equal intellect, these beings shared not only hatred and domesticated animals, but now ideas - sometimes written on bark, or parchment, or rock, or clay.  Their societies developed separate from, but also integrated with, other societies.  The tribes and towns of old had formed newer, glossier societies: They now had administration and codes of ethics.  They started motivating their "citizens", as they called them, and this idea - "nation states" - spread wherever there was no great physical impediment to it doing so.  Soon, everyone had a society - a "country" - and everyone was different, everyone was was afraid, and everyone wanted war.
 Over time, cultures moved, changed, killed each other off - creating the countries we can imagine today.
 No mandates were involved in the creation of societies.  No one society was better than another, although they all thought they were.

wrote on Mar 27^th, 2006 at 11:26am:

There are such things are unbiased films, or at least, films that do show some positive sides to the "bad" guys. You could show some reality.  British soldiers in the Revolutionary War were not heartless murderers.  There was a cavalry officer, Banastre Tarleton, who gained a reputation for no quarter, but he was an exception rather than a rule, and he was easily - easily - matched by the things done by the Americans.  Why not show some balance?

 How about No Flint Grey and the Paoli Massacre?

Indeed, yes, that was a "massacre", against the rules of war.  However...
 -- Colonel Charles Lynch of the Virginia militia gave his name to "Lynch Law".  That is to say, "give him a fair trial, then take him out and hang him."
-- Thomas Sumter, who gave his name to the now-famous Fort Sumter, hanged so many people, (Loyalists, British soldiers, and even his own men who weren't so crazy as he) that the people hanging from trees became known as "Sumter's Fruit."
 He is also called "Tarleton's Spiritual Twin" by historian Hugh Bicheno, author of "Rebels & Redcoats."  Both were psychopaths, both murdered people unnecessarily.  As you can see, you could try and show both sides of the story.
 Also:
 Mel Gibson was going to base his film, "The Patriot", on the revolutionary "hero" Francis "the Swamp Fox" Marion.  However, it turned out that Marion was a poison-dwarf, who killed without reason, was a racist to the extremes only capable of someone who has been brought up thinking black men are dogs, and who was very short, ugly, and had deformed legs.  (He was, however, a very effective leader, and this is no doubt where Mel got his idea from; his own insecurity over his image was no doubt the cause of his extremity of violence.)  This is what Bicheno has to say of them:
 "Sumter 'the Gamecock' and Marion 'the Swamp Fox' both owned modest plantations near Eutaw Springs on the lower Santee, which were laid waste during 1780 as a result (not, as in myth and film, the cause) of their continued resistance.  They were mirror images of Tarleton and James Wemyss.... they tortured prisoners, hanged fence-sitters, abused parole and flags of truce and they shot their own men when they failed to live up to the harsh standards they set."
 Marion made his name first by wiping out a column of Redcoats escorting 147 Continentals to Charleston.  This is the basis of the incident in the film where Mel uses a tomahawk, traded for with the Cherokee or somesuch, to kill the men kidnapping his son.  As we can see, the film is a little inaccurate in its portrayal of the war.  The number of books published on the American war of Independence in Britain after "The Patriot" was released is high - academics and historians hated the film with reason, and wanted to set the record straight.

http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Exclusive/0,,332358,00.html    Look here for some info.

I don't think Mel could have sold many tickets if his movie was titled "Racist Psychopath". "Patriot" just has a better ring to it. ;D  Vlad Tepes was a patriot also, no?

cathlic zealot that killed turks in the most gruesome way imaginable(even by my standerds) he's an ok fello ;D

G. Bush and T. Blair are two of the most efficient 'mass patriots'.....of all time.


::)


TS

i dunno dracula had nicer ways of killing his victems :P impalement is not a laughing matter  :-/ you could survive for as long as 3 days with one of those pole's sticking trough your body...  :-X

but think of the numbers between the two :) lives lost vs way lost.  :-/

He liked people impaled before and during breakfast as he ate.  Weird bloke.  But he was Christian Europe's main hope in the east in the early 16th century, so yes, he was both a European patriot and a Hungarian one (Transylvania was only ceded to Romania after the First World War.)

Quote:

But he was Christian Europe's main hope in the east

Show me ONCE where Christ advocated such atrocity......Doesn't matter if it's 1 or a million....If one doesn't follow one's teacher....then he or she cannot lay rightful claim to being that one's follower. Regarless of her progeny's blind propensity to accept such hyprocritical self entitlements.


Perpetuating such hypocrisy by word association and not deed association is juvenile labelism.


Fighting for ideals foreign to one's continual state of being is hypocrisy, pure and simple.....


Attacking Christ and His righteous teachings by such association is rather like a baby throwing out his brother along with their shared bathwater.



Christ is not shamed by your refusal to believe in Him....nor by those, living or dead, who claim Him as their master though their deeds continually prove who their real master has become.


No, the shame was, and will be,  theirs and their true master's alone to bear.




TS

I wasn't saying that Jesus Christ advocated such behaviour.  I was simply stating that to so-called Christian Europe at the time, he was the only hope of providing effective resistance against the Ottoman Turks.  Do you believe that there has ever existed a state that actually practised its stated form of religion or governmental practise?  Do you think that China from the Han dynasty onwards was truly Confucian, or that Israel truly follows Jewish law, or that the "Christian" states of Europe lived as the Bible states? No.  And in the same way, individuals act/think contrary to their stated beliefs.  For instance, in 2 Corinthians 7:1, the Bible states; "take care of your body and shun bad habits", but don't tell me you've never seen a Christian who smoked, or was fat, or a myriad of other things.  Or in the Dao de Jing, Lao Zi, and in the Zhuang Zi, Zhuang Zi, state that ritual should be left alone, and it is often absolutely zero importance (if anything is of importance.)  But see the Taoist clergy, wearing their robes, lighting incense, chanting, saying prayers - ritual!

Quote:

so-called

Your correction is notable and greatly appreciated!



TS

You're welcome.  However, Vlad the Impaler was indeed a patriot.

You are absolutely correct!  And unfortunately to many, so was Hitler and Lenin as well!


Which highlights pointedly, the necessity of a perfect redeemer.   I say, if one is going to fail his Master, let him direct such energies inwardly!  For the fallout will be less severe and tarnish less, his Master's name than by outward agression.


Such is the difference between weakness and wickedness.


One has recognized his continual failing and takes it out on others.....the other does not give up his personal fight to spiritually master his weak, fleshly condition.



TS

Hitler and... Lenin?  Pardon?  Lenin was hardly in the same league as Hitler.  The Russian Revolution may have been a terrible thing, but it was never truly under the control of anyone, even Lenin, and he cannot be held responsible for Stalin and the Purges.
 But yes, I see. I disagree with your overall point, though.  People like Vlad the Impaler and Hitler can be explained by biology and psychology - they were/are not intrinsically "bad."  Therefore, there is no requirement for a "redeemer", for there is nothing to redeem.

Oh, I bet that the makers of the movie would have a good laugh if they saw what the very idea of making the movie can cause. I'm going to have to go way back and read this now  :-/

English,


I am thankful that I can 'see' where you are coming from...


http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Eye_Refutes_Evolution.html


http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/SBS777/vital/evolutio.html


TS

" No one expects the Spanish Inquisition"! ;D......or the crusades ::)....all in you know whos name.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  


Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  


Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.  

Nobody seemed to mind when they were smiting the heathens or burning witches, cathars, jews, indians..........etc. It's Gods Will!! :'(

Quote:

Nobody seemed to mind

If someone were to....say....go out and commit a heinous crime and tell everyone that you gave him your blessing....told you to do it....even helped you plan it:


Would you be a little upset? How much patience would you exhibit before exacting retribution, if any? Would just you let is slide?


Please consider that, just as He says He is.....He is a patient God.


One whose patience is being tested to the full....and is beyond our measure of justice.


He has promised several times over in His word, that vengeance is His to exact upon Her....and all who feign connection with the Prince of Peace in order to destroy.

TS

Ah, the eye.  I see.  Debunk evolution by referring to the eye.  You know.... the eye can quite easily be explained.  Really rather easily.
 The first eyes were just simple carbon rods in the heads of trilobites - we know this from archaeological evidence.  It is quite simple to see how the refinement of this could come about:  to start, a covering to prevent the rod from becoming dirty, and not being able to see.  Eventually, limited muscle movement to move the rod about - quite simply, to get a better idea of predators/prey in the area.  Then, extra muscles to widen and narrow the angle of the rod, for bright/dim light.  It's really not too difficult to see how such things would come about!  It says in the first page you put down:

Quote:

Take away just one of the "evolved" parts of the eye--let's say the retina--and what do you have? An organ that can see? Hardly! Subtract the lens, or the cornea. Then put the retina back. Could the eye see? Never! It must be complete or it won't function.

 Obviously!  What a stupid statement.  Take away any single muscle from the arm and it can't function - doesn't mean we can't explain it.  Why try to debunk a scientific theory that can explain the vast majority of things, indeed, almost everything in reality, by focusing in on one single thing?  It doesn't make sense, and it doesn't point to a greater flaw in the theory.  Indeed, if the bacterial flagellum and human eye are the only things your so-called Christian scientists can come up with, then they could perhaps just try shutting up, listening to what the theory of evolution is and how it works.  It can be explained: DNA mutates.  This can be proven.  When DNA, the string of proteins that form a sort-of "active-blueprint", mutates, it causes changes, evidently, throughout the structure of the organism that it relates to.  These mutations either allow the organism to live long enough to mate/divide, hinder it in some way, or provide an active advantage by which the organism can reach the age of pro-creation.  It's really rather simple!  All science - all science - would halt if "scientists" just said "uh... God did it."

I have heard it said that the definition of an 'Atheist' is:


"One who tries to hurt God by telling themselves He doesn't exist".


There is kernel of truth to this, I think....


And relatively soon, we may get to see if it is of the 'Redenbacher' variety.


For many truths are 'popping' out at this time all over the world.



TS

Tech,
 I grew up in a Catholic family.  I went to church, and was fine with it.  However, when I actually thought about things, really thought, it was a very easy conclusion to reach that God does not exist, at the very least, not some giant anthropomorphic being controlling everything.  I was not trying to hurt God - it simply turned out that religion is irrelevant, far too human, and wrong.  Think about this...
 Before planets and stars, there was the cosmic dark age.  Nothing was, but nothing was not.  There was perfect darkness, before matter gathered in single places and grew.  How could there be any idea of good or bad at that time?  There wasn't one.  Morality is not intrinsic to the universe - therefore, there is no God.

 That is one of the routes taken that led me to believe there is no God.
 I did not become an atheist to rebel.  I became an atheist because it is the only way to look at things openly.  When it became necessary to take a stance, I saw that Christianity was wrong, and that there was no God.  I didn't one day decide, "there is no God.  I'll look for evidence."
 You are Christian because you are afraid.  You are afraid of the perfect darkness.  You are afraid of anything outside "normal" parameters.  You can't take the idea that you descended from proteins and single celled lifeforms.  You dislike anything devoid of emotion, because you can't see that emotions are just chemicals in your body, with very little reason or rhyme.  Why not reconcile yourself to these things?

wrote on Apr 9^th, 2006 at 1:42am:

If someone were to....say....go out and commit a heinous crime and tell everyone that you gave him your blessing....told you to do it....even helped you plan it: Would you be a little upset? How much patience would you exhibit before exacting retribution, if any? Would just you let is slide? Please consider that, just as He says He is.....He is a patient God. One whose patience is being tested to the full....and is beyond our measure of justice. He has promised several times over in His word, that vengeance is His to exact upon Her....and all who feign connection with the Prince of Peace in order to destroy. TS

 He who? Why not She?

If you stop thinking of the Creator in sexist terms things make alot more sense, even for a "Christian". God didn't make man in his own image. God made EVERYTHING in his/her image. Once you get that clear along with the idea that everything has a soul/spirit, then it might be easier to follow your Messiahs teachings.

If you are going to be pedantic in that sense, then allow the "it" you use to be qualified thus: It, Which Exists, But At The Same Time Does Not Exist, Outside The Normal Framework Of Time/Space And Is Seemingly Omnipotent But Without The Ability To Act In Time/Space, Passive Creator Of Everything.  Yeah, I think that just about covers it.  Of course, words could not describe such a non-thing.
 If God exists, but at the same does not exist, but is at the same time absent, who can comprehend it?  I can understand absence of being, but who can understand absence of non-being?  If, after all this, non-being is, who can comprehend it?  (A slightly adapted form of a part of the Zhuang Zi, entitled by Thomas Merton, "Starlight and Non-Being").

ow no not the religion debate -_-; i hate these things they always end with the cathlic person waving awayeverything i saidwith i'm still sure he exists so i'm not gonna bother...

I suppose.  Still, it's no good, just letting religion go unchallenged.  However, I find Catholics are more easy going; it's the hardcore, and not so hardcore, Anglicans/Evangelicals, etc, who are infuriatingly evolution-bashing.  Why?  It's a good theory.  Tells you a lot.  Why not use actual knowledge, science, experience, and everything else, to inform your worldview, rather than just assuming that some drug addicted, scared, weak, unhappy desert nomads knew all the answers?

yeah still you can cut down all the stories from the bible starting from adem and eve and still have them say they are true stories  :-X

I'm not trying to fuel this debate any further but I want to put this little thought in before I shut up. first of all, I am a hardline evolutionist. I mean, the thought of creationism and evangelical types trying to shove religion down our throats under the guise of science frankly makes me want to gag and start beating certain people with a copy of "the Origin of Species" until they find certain levels of pain they never knew existed in a physical realm. That's no exxageration. As well, I am religious, but my science and my religion are compartmentalised. Never in my explanation of evolution do I ever even consider saying that something must be "Because Odin wished it so." All things in the natural world can be explained by natural means. That's what science is. The second you start trying to interpose a deistic or supernatural causation into the equation, you just crossed the line into religion. I don't seriously believe as a scientists that mankind was formed from a giant cow licking lifeforms out of a block of salty snow. The truth of our legends and your bible, or koran or talmud is not in the stories itself, but the lessons it teaches. Don't look for veracity in the words, but look to the message of the story. And as for the debate about the eye...well, think for a second. If you consider that a lifeforms typically go through a 1% genetic change from the parental organisms once every generation or so, if you stretch that to say, 1% every 10,000 years (and I don't know of anything with a 10,000 year generational span) than you could go from an eyeless organism to one with eyes in 1 000 000 years only changing 1% of the genome at a time.  Considering that life has been on this earth for 3.5 billion years, give or take a little, the eye could have easily developed many times over. And think about it, before you claim that a great and noble structure as the eye could only have developed by divine construction, try thinking for a moment outside of your God box and try to actually figure out how evolution and random mutations really work and think about design flaws in the eye (i.e underwater vision very poor in humans, bad night vision, only sees three colours, differential in numbers of rods and cones etc...) I've said my piece, and that is it. Anyone wishing to discuss evolution with me can PM me or email me. I will gladly continue the discuss there, because this is not the time or place.

beat them with the origins of species:D i love it :D

Not the best way to inspire love of science or respect for your point of view, but after all, does not Darwin teach us that we are in fact, glorified animals? It's the ironical aspect I guess that appeals to me.

yep where all 'civilized'(pardon my spelling i'm sure) monkeys...so i guess he means where even worse then wild chimps ::)

wrote on Apr 9^th, 2006 at 8:06am:

I suppose.  Still, it's no good, just letting religion go unchallenged.  However, I find Catholics are more easy going; it's the hardcore, and not so hardcore, Anglicans/Evangelicals, etc, who are infuriatingly evolution-bashing.  Why?  It's a good theory.  Tells you a lot.  Why not use actual knowledge, science, experience, and everything else, to inform your worldview, rather than just assuming that some drug addicted, scared, weak, unhappy desert nomads knew all the answers?

So peyote is no good
? ::)............you just lost the Native American Church vote ;D

wrote on Apr 9^th, 2006 at 5:15pm:

beat them with the origins of species:D i love it :D

Yeah,  smite that Heathen! ;D

whats the legal status of peyote anyway? not that i'm going to go out and try it, but it's pretty interesting.

Try it? You can't even find it anymore!

it was on the history channel a short while ago, they were talking about some ancient civilizations culture, and it involved peyote.

Legally, members of the Native American Church can take peyote, but no one else can.
 Nice addition to the discussion there, Mammoth.  I truly feel exactly the same way about Creationism, and I get out the punch bag every time a creationist is on tv.

I agree, these religion V Irreligion arguments always end the same way.


'The eye is perfect, it must have been made by a creator'

'But its NOT perfect! Why make such an imperfect perfection?'

'Ummm.... God moves in Mysterious Ways. Who are we to question him? Burn, Heretic!!!'



I do not have a problem with Creationism being taught in schools. If Rationalists refuse to allow kids access to all sides of an argument, are they not falling into the same sort of behaviour that Religions have? Stephen Hawking is a good example of an atheist who behaves like a Believer, and a nasty bigoted believer at that.

I say they should be allowed to teach both. At lunchtime the two teachers can have fist-fights in the schoolyard.

Pat

The point is not that Creationism should not be taught, but that it should not be taught as science.  It can, and is, taught in religious studies classes, and that is fine.  It is not science, and it should be taught thus.
 Religion is a fascinating part of the evolution of humans.  The reason it came about seems quite evident: in humans, as in certain primates, there are mirror neurons.  These are the parts of the brain that deal with empathy:  they allow the organism to learn and acquire skills faster based not on actually doing the activity, but seeing someone else doing it and mentally replicating it.  (You can see where the advantage comes in.)  The mirror neurons also, obviously, allow the organism to feel the pain of other organisms - empathy - again, an important, if secondary, advantage to the organism; it doesn't want similar organisms to die, narrowing the gene pool.  This leads it to believe that the organisms that are similar to it are "special."  The fact that they can feel the pain of others, due to the mirror neurons firing off passive pain receptors (a "mirror" of the event), makes the organism believe that there is a separation between "good" and "bad"; and this follows that, with the enlarged brain of advanced primates, there must be a reason behind the bad and the good - a God.  It's really rather simple.  And all one has to do is think a little outside the box, and we can see through the illusory notions given by the brain.

Quote:

Religion is a fascinating part of the evolution of humans. - english

 Fascinating?   Let's be honest.....your coy use of the term in light of your obvious contempt for such concept reveals more than a little angst concerning the issue.


Your above statement may be more accurately expressed:


"Evolution is a fascinating, vital and diversionary part of the religion of humans, namely me."


For it requires greater leaps of faith to close the chasms of her missing links than to believe in a God whose calling cards are etched upon all.  Even the hearts of the faithless.



Quote:

"Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."- Charles Darwin

One of many pointed though largely dismissed facts regarding 'evolution'....is that of all the fossils on record.  None have been found in an interspecies transitory condition.


Even though, quite logically, there should be MYRIADS more of them than their 'stable' forms.  For, according to evolution's own religious theory,  for every modern example of a certain species....there should be hoardes and hoardes of examples of fossils exhibiting the long, arduous, journey from one species to another.


Even when living examples of ancient species are found....the Coelacanth for instance.....


They are shown to have not 'evolved' at all.  The Coelacanth, as is demonstrated on rare occasion, still swimming clumsily along with it's stubby fins, or as some priests of science like to faithfully refer to them.... 'legs'.


The thoughtless, brainless, mechanism that 'sees' the need to 'design' new appendages to adapt to the 'survival of the fittest' model......absent.


The Coelacanth swims today, looking exactly as the fossils unearthed from their burial places.....from millions of years ago.


Although there are myriad examples of life today which clearly show the amazing flexibility of species to adapt to environment WITHIN their species......


The fossil record is conspicuously devoid of any obvious interspecies 'mutations'.  Of which there should, statistically be many, many more than those uncovered......and if anything, this fact alone lends serious support against the the perverse religious supposition that is....'Evolution'.




Famous Quotes:



Quote:

"The curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps; the fossils are missing in all the important places." (Francis Hitching, archaeologist). "As is well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the fossil record." (Tom Kemp, Oxford University) "The fact that a theory so vague, so insufficiently verifiable, and so far from the criteria otherwise applied in 'hard' science has become a dogma can only be explained on sociological grounds." (Ludwig von Bertalanffy, biologist) "Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ... I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?" (S Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London:Croom Helm, p.422)) "If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze." (Evolutionist Herbert Nilson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden:Verlag CWK Gleerup Press, 1953, p 174) "In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge ... or even a new enzyme." (Gordon Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper and Row, 1983, pp 34, 38) "The uniform, continuous transformation of Hyracotherium into Equus, so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in nature." (George Simpson, palaeontologist and Evolutionist)

TS

Clearly you misunderstand the theory.  I meant what I said - religion is fascinating.
 You think creatures exist in transitory forms?  Of course not.  Each successive generation is a transitory form.  This can be seen through plants that have many generations very quickly: Thale Cress has 8 generations every year, and it's genetic mutations are frequently assessed and checked.  It mutates.  We know this.
 The simple truth is this: there is no such thing as a truly defined species.  Species change every generation.  There is no long arduous journey between species, apart from a single journey that began 4,000,000,000 years ago and is still going on, and will continue whilst there is still life.  DNA does not design.  It fluctuates and spasms and mutates and changes - it doesn't do it deliberately or with any method, rhyme, or reason.  The transitory stages are everywhere, not just in the fossil record.
 
Quote:

"In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge ... or even a new enzyme."

 The human race took, ooh, let's see, about 4,000,000,000 years of evolution to create, so in 50 years we should have... very little difference at all!  Similarly, the flies used in one experiment were/are not then used again in another experiment - you are using "virgin flies".
 One of the main reasons that religion is fascinating is because it actively makes human beings retard themselves.  Nothing else can do that.  Nothing else can make you deliberately ignore fact and reason.  

Quote:

The fossil record is conspicuously devoid of any obvious interspecies 'mutations'.  Of which there should, statistically be many, many more than those uncovered......and if anything, this fact alone lends serious support against the the perverse religious supposition that is....'Evolution'.

 So you are unaware of the oh-so-many different kinds of proto-human?  Homo erectus, australopithecus africanus/afarensis.... far too many to mention.  Ever poor old homo sapiens neanderthalis, butt of so many jokes and myths.
 It is a shame that a person who is reasonably intelligent should fly not just in the face, but right in the eyes, of fact and evidence, proof, science and reality.

The coelacanth, by the way, varies too.  There are two species known, latimeria chalumnae and latimeria menadoensis.

Quote:

The simple truth is this: there is no such thing as a truly defined species.

And there we have it.


I get where you're coming from.  I see where you're going with this.  ;)



Quote:

a person who is reasonably intelligent should fly

I read ya.


8)



The 'floor' is all yours.  Put the mop away when you're done.



TS

Mop away you say?  Then I shall proceed.

 Ridicule evolution, cause my children to have to learn this tosh, and I will hunt and kill each and every creationist.  Your species will not continue.  Your species, who utilise the same science that proves the age of the earth to make giant bombs that really work, and then denies that it proves the age of the earth after using it for your own ends, you, who decide to have a war about whose religion is better when the answer is evident, you who have irrational fears about the empty space of the universe, who hate abortions and what they are, who claim to hold life sacred and then send theirs and other peoples' sons away to fight rag-heads - YOU - you will not pass on your genes.  Your susceptible-to-bs, wilfully-stupid, short-sighted species... it can't survive.
 I am most angry.


Again, back to the coelacanth:  "legs" indeed.  The coelacanth is no longer believed to be the ancestor of tetrapods.  A relative of the lungfish is, instead, suggested as the common ancestor.

Ok, one more.  But only because your true colors are showing.




Quote:

The coelacanth, by the way, varies too.  There are two species known, latimeria chalumnae and latimeria menadoensis

Quote:

The simple truth is this: there is no such thing as a truly defined species.

And the rest of your perturbations....well, what needs to be said about irrational and prejudiced labelism?


Other than to say,



God bless you, english, in Yahshua, Jesus Christ.




And P.S.   I didn't send my brothers off to fight 'ragheads' as you call them.   You know who did.  And as far as I can tell, you are in the very same camp as those who are in charge of subverting Christianity and using it's corrupt leadership to make the whole of it look bad.  


Truth is, it doesn't take much for man to make a fool of himself in grand fashion.


But when well meaning, naive Christians fall into the hands of those like these:


http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html


Racism, Genocide.....'hunting and killing' are the order of the day.



God bless their souls.



TS

The word "species" may, perhaps have been inappropriate when describing the coelacanth, this being due to the fact that 2 have been found.  However, as each organism is separate and different, they are each their own species, and thus.... there are two known coelacanth species.
 God bless me?  Don't waste your words.
 Labellism?  It is quite evident that one of the main criticisms of religion is that words have no intrinsic meaning.  Prejudice?  Yes - I quite often prejudge rubbish with no basis.  You have a clear anti-science bias.  If there actually appeared convincing - and I mean, convincing, not as in, you know, stupid - evidence that God exists and the Bible creation story was truth, I'd not only give in, but be a devout believer.  As it happens, however....

 I have no problem with hunting and killing.  I accept I am no more and no less than any other organism, and neither is anyone else.  I eat other organisms.  I kill and hunt and cook and uproot other organisms.   Massacres and cannibalism and rape - all are nothing to the universe at large.  Only chemicals cause us to see things in our own lights.

English,

I need clarification on something you said:

Quote:

one of the main criticisms of religion is that words have no intrinsic meaning.

Did you mean to say that, in your view, words have no intrinsic meaning?  Or did you mean that, in your opinion, "religion" holds that words have no intrinsic meaning?

If the former, then you and I cannot possibly communicate; as Humpty Dumpty said, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less." -- which sounds fine on the face of it but which actually makes H.D. the sole and self-appointed arbiter of meaning -- convenient, as he cannot then lose any argument (as H.D. himself notes, a sentence later).  But that is not really what I think you mean.  But allusions to Alice in Wonderland are fun to make, and the chance to do so should not be passed up, even if it makes one's post ramble and leave the topic.

Ahem.

If the latter ... well, some religions (or philosophies) seem to be saying this.  or at least, they have been so portrayed.  I am minded of one old guru, saying something like "Since 'good' and 'evil' are equally without meaning, one may as well laugh."  Which I take to be a profound-sounding statement of the nihilist philosophy.

But I don't agree with nihilists.  Words do have meaning.  Life does have meaning.  And you and I can communicate.

Some of my best friends are"Rag Heads". :)

Words have no intrinsic meaning, that is what I meant.  The reason we can communicate is because we are both native English speakers; we have been around it since birth, and have been educated to around 99% lexicographical similarity.  There are some words that are different (between American and British English), and your idea, inside your head, of what each word really means is somewhat different from mine.  For instance... take the security guard and the new mum.  The security guard hears the word "secure" and immediately thinks of doors shutting, or locks, or keys, or his normal patrol route.  The new mum thinks of a crib, her baby inside, sleeping quietly, the window shut, nice and warm; even though, if pressed, they would probably define the word "secure" in almost exactly the same way.  This is at it's most crude.  However, in the grand cosmos which we passingly inhabit, it is possible to see that only in the completely human-bound world do words have any meaning at all.  When you learn new languages, you see that words you never thought could be used for something quite often are, or that some words have very broad usages.  For instance, again, at it's crudest (sorry, I've never committed these ideas to the written form before, so I don't have any off-hand concrete examples), the word "table" in English refers to both a table where one might place bowls and kitchen utensils - ie, a table and chairs, as well as a "table of results", or even a plateau or "limestone table", that kind of thing.  In German, however, the word "Tabelle" refers only to the "table of results" kind of table.  The word "Tisch" refers to a table with chairs etc.  It's this kind of thing that convinces me that words have no real, instrinsic, universal value - it also means that real, perfect translation is not possible.  If we use a modern idiom and "think outside the box", seeing that the "human race" invented words and before "humans" there were no words, then there cannot be a "word of God", I believe, because God would be timeless and spaceless, without words.  However wise the Bible might be, it cannot, by my reckoning, be divine.
 It's been nice talking of this with you, Dale.  If you wish to raise queries, and debunk this, be my guest! :)