panpareil

The assumption that a pacifist must have originally been a predator can also be questioned. They may just as easily be a vegetarian prey animal that chooses not to defend itself. The example being the bovine, whose most typical example is the cow. The cow is quit capable of killing a puny human but has been made so docile by domestication that they now are subject to tipping by bored teenagers. When they were feral they were quite another beast, and one that was hunted by only the bravest. I think the key component to pacifism is domestication, in the case of humans, state or societal domestication. This is something that has to be done each generation or there is an immediate return to the natural feral state.

Going to the moon and returning.

First, as a precolonial Hindu, one is merely perplexed and amused by the Christian insistence on the need for forgiveness for acts not committed, or for the gift of paradise by the worship of a dead man. As to displeasure, you do not feel it from God but from the ministering Christian instead, which does not cause you to be drawn to them or their beliefs. Particularly, since they had been at it in India since the first century and are nothing new, nor have they made much impact on Indian culture. As Joseph Campbell quoted D.T. Suzuki on his view of Christianity, "God against man. Man against God. Man against nature. Nature against man. Nature against God. God against nature. Very funny religion!"

Cute video. Now, if you dropped a fish between the dolphin and the cat, I wonder what would happen?

In the last century the two phrases were used interchangeably, and they are still related for most anti-rich conspiracy types who see the world run by rich Jewish bankers. Even if you remove the anti-Semitic component, the rest of the viciousness still remains and is bad enough on its own. And targeting a faceless evil is even more dangerous for the innocent, as was evidenced by Joseph McCarthy and the anti-red scare. Then anyone can be attacked. What is evident in these attacks is the divide and eliminate strategy that we have seen over and over. That is embodied in the targeting small segments of society, the parts the majority do not care about, and moving on from one group to another until all are conquered and enslaved. Such is the tactic of the Statists. Whether Fascist, Communist, Nazi, Socialist, Crony Capitalist or Theocrat, all require a State where the sovereignty to rule resides in itself and not the people. This allows sovereignty to reside in the small minority who control the State.While I agree that government is necessary, I also hold that I and all others are sovereign. Where there is conflict between members of a society it is a conflict between sovereigns, and should be treated as such, just as it is in the world of nations, because in essence we are all nations of one. It would be inconsistent to have one position for the interactive behavior of nations or groups of nations, and another for the interactive behavior of sovereign individuals or groups of sovereign individuals. We are all the heads of state and deserve to be treated as such. Or do you favor the treatment of Tibet, after all China is the majority.

I will say again, the use of the phrase "The Rich" is very reminiscent of the phrase "The Jews". It is being used in the same pejorative fashion and for the same reasons as it was used in the early last century.

So you are equating protecting ones property to theft and greed. I personally have destroyed my property rather than let someone take it.And need has nothing to do with anything except the decision of who to give one's property to if one chooses to do so. There is no right in need, while there is a right in ownership of property. Try proving that need trumps ownership, in general. The only argument is see here is more money equals more wrong. I see no general proof of that either. All that is convincingly conveyed here is a deep sense of envy.

I haven't always agreed with you, but I have valued your opinion and perspective. Good luck,

Mormonism is a form of Gnostic Christianity. In fact Gnostic thought pervades most American religions - Pentecostals, Christian Scientists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists - including the religion of our founder. I would think Gnosticism is more American the any other religious strain.

The makers are also the givers in this world. They are the ones who create enough to give to their own stuff to others, and are the true altruists. Giving to others is egotistic if you did not make what you are giving. I am also hearing more talk of a capital strike if things do not change this year. Atlas is ready to shrug.

I read a story about a Bodhisattva once, but have never been able to find it again. It goes something like this. The Bodhisattva (or Buddha) was traveling through the forest where he was attacked by a bandit. The bandit asked him for all his money. The Buddha said he did not have any money, all he had was his robe and his begging bowl. The bandit demands his begging bowl. The Buddha replies that he needs his begging bowl to live and hands the bandit his robe. The bandit takes the robe but demands what else do you have. The Buddha replies that all he has is his begging bowl. The bandit demands his begging bowl again and moves to take it, at which point the Buddha takes pity on him and quickly swings the begging bowl in his hand, striking the bandits head with such force that he is instantly enlightened and sent to Nirvana. My take on this is that negative reinforcement is enlightening, and should not be withheld because of misguided squeamishness. In other words tough love is sometimes the better love. Sometimes violence is the better path to peace and happiness, while passivity only prolongs suffering.

So far, all the complaints here have been from the crusades onward. None of it has anything to do with the Dark Ages which ended before the crusades. The Dark Ages ended in 1000AD. Is this a discussion of the Dark Ages or, just another why I hate Christianity or Catholics or the Pope thread? The religion of the Nazis was Naziism. They co-opted any symbols that would work for their creation of pure Aryan nation even an antisemitic Christ or original sin of racial degeneration. If anything they were Gnostics.

The period of the dark ages or the early middle ages ended with the beginning of the crusades and the inquisition. Before this the Catholics shared Europe with the Arians, with most of the ruling barbarian aristocracy being Arian. If you are looking for a reason for the fall of Rome and the barbarian invasion in a single source I would pick the Huns. Their invasion pushed the barbarians into Rome. The exiled barbarians took advantage of Romes weakness and craved up the western empire into their new kingdoms, bringing Arian Christianity with them. The new aristocracy not only allowed the public to keep their traditional Catholic religion in an expression of religious freedom, they also removed the previous Roman barrier between the lower and upper classes for personal meritorious advancement, keeping in line with the Arian religious belief that it is merit alone that delivers salvation. It was only after the Catholic barbarian rulers had conquered and suppressed the Arian barbarians, reunifying Europe under the Roman Church that the dark ages ended. The dark ages might not have ended up seeming so dark to us if more of written history had survived all the book burning of the Catholics. Europe was not so much dark as ruled by non-trinitarians.

I think the simple fact that Jesus and the apostles were Jews is enough to dispel any idea that there was any Nazi belief in Christianity.

Good for them. And apparently good for us as well. Yeah, no one else would do that. Oh wait, the Pagans and the Muslims did it first didn't they. Conversion by the sword, crucifixion, fed to the lions, the sack of Jerusalem, the scattering of the Jews... I guess the Christians didn't invent any of that stuff after all. They were just good learners.And while we are at it, they did nothing in the Americas that was not done before by the previous inhabitants either. What they did do that is different was create a world where we are now free to be outraged by such actions.

For the Romans conquest was used like taxation is today. And they imploded for the same reason our current nations will implode if they do not curb their spending. The Romans did not live within their means.As to causes of the post-imperial society that some call the dark ages, I think the Roman Church saved and preserved the remnants of Rome. They archived ancient texts, founded the oldest universities, and held key positions in the reestablishment of government.

The number of years of the planet. The number or type of life altering experiences survived or conquered. No. It is not impossible, but it is unlikely, and it is growing more unlikely in our culture. It seems we are purposefully making sure that this does not happen.

This may break everyone's mood but it is great for inner-city biking. [media=] This is for a more thoughtful ride.

No control - no creation. No art. No technology. No science. While it is interesting and and informative to just go with the flow, life seems to have chosen a different path, one that leads willfully away from entropy.

One should be able to think what ever they want. One should be able to say what ever they want. One just cannot do whatever they want. Speech is a grey area that is sometimes just saying something while other times it's actually doing something. For those times when it is doing something, even when the speaker is unaware that they are doing something, it is under the same restrictions as doing something. That said, be as intolerant as you want as long as you do not say or do something that affects others. I am intolerant of those who interfere with the liberty of others. Their actions must not only be censured, they must be counteracted.

Schwinn Ranger. Who needs motors to risk their life.

Purging ALL Christianity from our national life would also included deleting the Reverend Martin Luther King, since honoring him may also be construed as honoring Christianity. This is no greater a stretch than finding a problem with the small print on our currency. Should all his work be edited to excise all references that can be construed as religious, or perhaps religion is too deeply ingrained in his entire work and person that nothing can be salvaged. Should the Civil Rights movement as a whole be purged because of its heavy Christian underpinnings. I think we are adult enough to leave things where they are. Religious content can be looked upon as just historical relics.

Justification is irrelevant. Utility and functionality are more important. If it helps to more reliably predict behavior then it is useful.And I never said that any level of knowledge is enough to stop gathering information. The collection and processing of information is never complete and never ceases.

I doubt everything on a rational level. I trust my feelings. All is not grey, it is color in an infinite number of bits. I am the way I am because I have chosen to be that way, or because I have chosen to not do what is necessary to be what I desire. Environment is a limit that knowledge can overcome. Certainty is irrelevant. Determination and a clear vision are essential.

If humans did not die at a reasonable rate we would consume the whole planet at a blinding rate. Death is natures way of being fair.