Youch

I don't believe that would be an effective way to expand participation. I agree with some of those comparisons. Okay, so how do so many other forums, by the scores, ney thousands, have so much more active participation? It may have to do with the marketing that comes with/from banners and links and the like, but to the extent that content (or, to your point the quality and taste of our well-stocked shelves) has something to do with it, is there anything we (meaning everyone) can do? Or, is that not the desire? I have read that most of the current ULC Forum population considers this a nice, little, cozy, personal community, and that most folks likes it just the way it is!!! If that is true, then the current population has indeed created a nice, little, cozy, personal community which perhaps from time to time some of us may pop in to say hello. and , PS: I trust my motives for bringing all this up are properly understood.

True that! Such a comment brings many memories/stories to the forefront of my mind. Nevertheless, does site management want to expand membership and participation?

awesome!!!

Murph, thank you for taking the time to address my concern/post/questions. Yes, I miss those folks. But rules are rules, and personal decisions are personal decisions..... But was Hyper Real really banned? Must have been recent..... I always cringe at the thought, even when I know such a decision is necessary.

With only a handful of repetitive members, a good question to the Forum might be to ask, why so few posting members? Why only a handful of regular participants? Is this a tolerant social forum that wants to attract more members? Is it a personal whim? Is it a business model that isn't working? I don't know about the rest of you, but this forum used to be much more exciting, engaging, diverse and stimulating. Tolerant might be a term used loosely at various times over the years...... While I have been on this forum for a long time, I don't know anything about Kevin, and precious little about Murph. I would be interested to know what the motives, goals and desires are of the "managment team" of this forum. Is it even wrong to ask the question? and ,

No. It has to do with pitting one "class" against the another. It is the cornerstone of liberal politics. If you want me to elaborate, I will.

No, as that would not even make any sense. No it isn't.. That would be called voting conservative Unless of coure your point only reflects the recipients of the entitlement society. In which case, you are more a statist activist rather than an advocate for the underemployed. Let's take your dangerous assumption that the "government loses even more money." ITS NOT THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY. The government cannot lose money that is not theirs to begin with. Get it??? Seriously, do you understand this? Yes liberalism, and the inevitable progressivism or socialism, or the catch-all 'statism' is definately class warfare. It's all they got. Divisiveness. Class warfare......

So, to you the ego is disconnected from the mind?

Envy, jealousy and class warfare......

Three responses: 1. Your underlying assumption is that religion is both protagonist and antagonist in the play for peace on earth?? I find that fascinating, and also probably true. 2. Why would I need to know anything about your religion to live in peace with you????? If members of a religion are not causing you harm in any way, you have no basis to judge your peaceability with them based on religiosity. The converse must then also be true.....since radical members of a particular religion are currently waging war against, for the lack of a more concise term, western culture, and using religious imperative as their justification, then clearly degrees of peaceability can based on religion and supports your notion that knowing more about the underlying philosophy is important to find peace in a hostile environment. Hope I've made my thoughts on the subject clear!! Then again, some would say it is peaceability via various religions that promotes the peaceful environment not to care what someone else's religion is! 3. Beyond that, if you want to know about a particular religion, Google might be the best portal to find Mormonism to mean whatever you want it to mean, ya know what I mean? But what you won't find are credible references to Mormons causing anything resembling the hate, intolerance, terrorism, oppression, and dysfunction that we find in another. I mean, wouldn't some OTHER religion in the world be MORE of a concern for you to "learn and understand" for peace in the world???

Time being what it is, I seldom read long forum posts such as these. But I read yours in it's entirety with the intent to understand. Realistically, I'm on the downhill side of the proverbial mountain of life. I can relate to what you state and question. I think it (what you describe) is probably common. It must be. For we as the superior species are a thinking and discerning and reasoning animal who ponders such introspection as a manner of adaptation to our ever-changing environment. There are a lot of simplitons in the world, but I consider the vast majority of humans to be as introspective and retrospective as the next guy or gal as they age and wisen and gain a broader perspective that begs the very questions you pose. Thanks to the backspace button, that is about as succinct as I can possible be.

Purpose of existence? To exist. It is life's prime directive. A better question would be why so many humans act in a manner completely antithetical to this prime directive.

Agreed. This is partly why simplicities-brother has decided to back away, and why I seldom post here anymore. Good luck Dan, I always enjoyed your posts..... Now isn't THAT a statement to ponder!!!

Who cares????

Verisoph, long time no speak..... So, "you kill all kinds of things!!!" As you stated?? How is that pacifism? Sounds like rationalisation to me...... Regarding your view of evolution.... the creatures you mention that will not kill to further their life are fictional. Life is different than books!

Our founding fathers were of course influenced by their faith. They were also influenced by their experience and by history; compared to today's boobs our founding fathers were quite learned and well read. Faith played a HUGE role in crafting our Declaration and Constitution. I again request people read the Federalist Papers and other contemporary correspondance to understand their intent and purposes.

On the contrary: http://www.lawandliberty.org/founders.htm http://oneclimbs.com/2012/03/12/the-founding-fathers-were-overwhelmingly-religious-men/ http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5243 http://acheritagegroup.org/blog/?p=321 http://www.quora.com/How-many-of-the-U-S-Founding-Fathers-were-Christian http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/07/myth-15-founding-fathers-were.html On the contrary, any of these citations are only a vey small part of the whole; our founding father's were very devout and heavily influenced. The degree's to which their dedication is almost irrelevent. The overall influence is unargueable. Funny, in these discussons there is almost never a reference to any other religious/philosophical point of view. It is a DUH moment.....

If you had done your homework, as you suggest, then you would've already known the answers to your questions. As an aside, which influences all these discussion, is have you read Plato's Republic? I have, but more importantly so did the Founding Fathers, who were quite learned in both political philosophy and the history of man. It is a debate, I agree, but to me that answer is exceedingly obvious!! It is importantly to know the difference between the difference of the terms you cite.

No, they actually were not influenced by "a variety of religions," which is why I directed you to their own writtings!! Read their own writtings.... Why would you assume/ssert my posts are not factually based?? I have no contrarian reputation!!!!??!? At worst the FFs conflicted between Christianity and the Jeffersonian theist position. But in large mesaure they were conjoined in their moral and historical belfief! Either way, it does not change my post or the position at all...... Read the FF's own documents...... And can you find any confliction in the US Constitution??? Or course not....

Why not research/ask/quote/cite the Morman Church?

Yet, that title of the thread is this: What Level Of Responsibility Does Christianity Hold For The Dark Ages? Isn't that different than asking this: Did the suppression of Scientific Discoveries and suppression of free thought create the environment that led to the Dark Ages? Christianity is responsible for a lot of things, most of which has been fantastic for the human experience. Our very own U.S. Constitution derives much of it's morals from the Bible (this isn't debateable, look to their own writtings). To your second, more specific question........ I find it far more interesting than your titled question. My re-phrasing: Did religious motivations prevent/prolong the Enlightenment and thus the Industrial Revolution and thus the Technological Revolution?? I think yes is the only answer. Corportions do the same thing. It's a human thing called competitiveness.

Humans are animals. And I agree with your post; this is a frequent occurrence. Meaning, in terms of my above and all posts, to be found in nature. I am not aware of any species that will refuse the act of violence over survival of one’s self or their offspring. Now, you may cite some obscure spider or the radical human progressive that has lost his/her survival instincts, to which I would concede that there may be that odd and naturally evolving dysfunction. But there is sufficient data and knowledge to support that within the animal kingdom the notion of pacifism is a contrived pipe dream, and certainly a dead-end on any evolutionary chart.

Let's pretend that progessivism has the best interests of the human existence in mind..... Got an historical proof? Other than the utopian dream, I mean.....

I have yet to hear or read an effective, actionable and sustainable alternative to her adaptation of this basic conservative philosophy. Utopian alternatives don't exist for long, and are an antithesis to natural human endeavor. This falls on deaf ears when presented in terms of voting criteria, however.....which means we're screwed!!

So you both agree that some animals kill for reasons other than hunger. Sure, it also happens as a result of protection, defense, and even randomness. Animals are animals. But I don't think that is the point. The point is, is it natural to be a pacifist? And of course the natural answer is no.