Foolishness is just a state of mind, but mind aside.

I insist that you to justify that statement.

Please feel free to quote me , my rebuttals will be forthcoming,

Mystic.
I digress, but you win i wish you well in your goals,
It must be difficult , but i understand.
Take care and strive hard,
You will achieve.
Thank you for the challenge .
You gave me a new insight into life.

Try hard.

er Marcus.

PS i formally retire from this thread. I wont be back.

What the hell? I dont see Mystik ever doing anything of the sort. And based on previous posts, your acting rather childish. And thats weird, since you were pretty mature up until now. =/

Edit: Oh, and OZ, no I wasnt being sarcastic. At the time, we were minding our own business, and we declared neutrality. Yet, we were still dragged into the war.

I find this lack of 'faith' quite unsettling. True, there may be parts of this work that are 'fictitious' and there are definitely errors in translation as well as 'added' content that kings and church officials threw in.
On the whole however, the Bible is quite legitimate in the message that it has conveyed to us for thousands of years. It may be a bit convoluted in it's text but you are supposed to come away from the book 'enlightened' by what you read, not come out debating the 'legitimacy' of what is written. Faith is blind and one who has faith needs no proof for their faith is enough.
I am not a 'religious' man but I am a 'spiritual' man. There is a greater power out there and I firmly believe this. Jesus was real and regardless of whether or not he truly is our 'savior', as I believe him to be, more than what Jesus 'was' is the message which he brought to us... a message that unfortunately we just don't wish to listen to. Scholars always say we 'learn' from history, the mistakes of our past. I can't see how this can possibly hold true if we constantly repeat our mistakes, decade after decade after decade.
Sorry for the break up in your little debate guys... I don't like to chime in on the topic of racism because I've given up on it. I have been on both sides, that is to say once I was EXTREMELY racist and not towards any specific group... what I used to like to call "an equal opportunity hater". My views have changed tremendously over the years though and even though there will always be that initial layer of 'racism' within me, I try very hard to look past the cover and to the content. Unfortunately even I falter on occasion as a change in attitude takes great perseverance to achieve sometimes.

Just to add to this, it is a shame that you guys are taking this debate personally. This is why I feel debate is pretty much pointless at times, even though I do love a good 'argument'. In the end one side, or both, just become frustrated and then the situation degenerates from there. Yes, debate is good... we just need to learn how to curb that 'animal instinct' within us that makes us 'come out fighting' when forced against a wall, which is kind of what I am seeing here with you guys.
Us acting like this is the EXACT reason Kryo deems it necessary to lock our posts as well as his 'trying' to squelch our 'discussions'. Let's not give him any reasons, okay?

Sorry. It's hard to tell.



I agree. Mystik has strongly held views. Stating them strongly isn't bullying. The point would be to debate them, just as strongly.



I find it interesting to note how similar many of the great religions are in their core beliefs. Jesus said the greatest commandment is to love God, and to love each other. So did Mohammed and Buddha. We have twisted their words to suit our ends and lost that message.



The older I get the more I tend to see the world in shades of gray, not just black and white. These issues are very complicated, and the deeper you dig looking for truth they just get more complicated, and sometimes harder to discuss. Words like "bigot", "racist", and "hatred" are so emotionally loaded that once they get used it is really difficult to continue a debate.



Yup. Think about this. I'm sure we are from different age groups. I don't think that I will be elected to a position of powere and change the world. But if a 18 or 20 year reads this thread and really thinks about these things, then maybe 25 years from now he could be a leader and these discussions could have an impact. We all change the world every day, even if only in a small way.

Sorry we're making extra work for you, Kryo. I've been enjoying it, though.

actually, Buddha didn't say that. that's more like a Hare Krishna belief. the core of the Buddha's teachings were The Four Noble Truths:
-life is characterized by suffering
-suffering is caused by attachment (desire and hatred rooted in ignorance)
-suffering can be ended only by ending attachment
-the means to end attachment is the eight-fold path

the later-day Mahayanist movement added a strong emphasis to love, but classical Theravada Buddhism sees love as half the cause of the world's problems. most Buddhisms lack a capital-G God concept (Devas are seen as beings as equally caught up in the wheel of suffering and rebirth as we are).

that's the classical cannon. that's doesn't mean it's the way most buddhists live. in fact, at this point it only really describes the lives of monastics in Thailand and Sri Lanka. most buddhists are some branch Mahayana (which itself is Sanskrit for 'majority'). they advocate compassionate treatment towards all sentient beings foremost.

You are better informed than I am. So, what is your opinion? Are love and tolerance core beliefs of the great religions, or am I off base here?

whew, what a twisty topic, and i'd say that's a tough question to respond to.

i don't feel comfortable saying something like that is at the core of a religion because "a religion" is actually many different religions. i will say that compassion or love (for your fellow people), at least some measure of tolerance, and community are central foci in any healthy culture. of course, a culture doesn't need to be healthy to survive for at least a few hundred years, and sometimes immediate survival can even produce cultural patterns that are harmful in the long run. this is very much the case with Islam, its earliest history being one of strife. there are lots of different definitions of religion. i view religion as if it were a language. it's a very powerful language, for sure, but it's only a medium through which to make statements. the statements that are made are only as good as the people making them, no matter the religious rhetoric used. (Islam's another good example. we've all seen the hatred preached through Islam on the news. but did you know that our concept of 'soul mate' comes from the 11th century Islamic text, The Ring of the Dove, by Ibn Hazm?)

that's my opinion anyway. it's certainly no end-all, be-all opinion. i got my degree in sociology magna cum laude for doing graduate-level research and i also minored in the study of religion, so it's not totally ill-informed, at least.

Good concept. I never thought of it that way.



Ummm...that's probably an understatement. I would certainly say you know what you're talking about.



So, do you think there is common ground here? I want to believe that the current situation in Iraq is due in large part to a religion that has been hijacked by zealots. Kind of like a Jim Jones-Guiana-drink the-poison-Kool-Aid thing. But perhaps the religion itself is warped? But then we really are in a winner take all holy war, and I don't want to believe that.

Yea, anyway i am not perfect in my debating skills and i wouldn't expect it of anyone else, some people have allot more to learn about debating than others, I don't mind, although being called a racist is a little startling.

It does make you think harder to defend your position, though. What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

hehehe yea,

it is different in the public arena though, once the media gets hold of any kind of hint of racism true or not, that public figure is a gonner! Thus the fear of the racism tant creates what we all call 'rampant pollitical correctness'.

i'll take the Jim Jones theory for 200, Alex.

i have too many Muslim friends to believe there's something wrong with the religion. it was the Muslims who, during the European dark ages, preserved the Hellenic culture and Aristotlian empiricism that eventually formed the basis of modern Western science.

Absolutely. I've read Latin (medieval) translations of those Arabic texts which are 1) preserving Aristotle, and 2) commenting upon Aristotle with great profundity.

Islam has the potential to think in as rational a way as the West, it's just that their political situations right now are really messed up! If the US had had a Saddam ruling us, dividing us, and killing many of us, for 20 years or more, we'd be deeply divided too.

hmmm how come America recovered from the civil war ok then? I bet if America had opposing Muslim factions during the civil war then it would be a shit can of a country today, just like Iraq.

Also it is human nature to root for the underdog, to admire those fighting against all odds, and have sympathy for the poor fighting the ritch. therefor peaceful Muslims have that temptation constantly drawing them to support radical Muslims.

Yes, you're right, the American Civil War wasn't a religious fight. In fact, Christian churches tended to "crap out" by not supporting one side or the other. Was that a good thing? Would a Christian now be happy to know that his/her church didn't take a stand on slavery when it was right up for decision?




Do you have any evidence of this? I've seen independent videos of Iraqi families who aren't particularly religious, documenting how they're dealing with the situation now. They're not sympathetic with the radical Muslims, and they're also not sympathetic with the Americans because they aren't doing anything (they can see) to help. In fact, they see innocent people being harrassed and killed by Americans, as they see innocent people being harrassed and killed by radical Muslims.

I think we've really missed an opportunity to use the tech we now have. We could have made connections with Iraqis, the educated majority of whom were secular before we invaded, and they wanted to have a secular society. It would have been very interesting to have dedicated cafes set up in big cities in each country which would have allowed direct contact with people in the US and Iraq. This is something I thought right after the US took over, but nothing of that nature took place, of course. It might sound naive, but it seems that that's what it would take for a "democracy" like ourselves to reach out to another country without having to dominate them militarily without end.

I officially dislike this thread, mostly due to the earlier half page arguement over personal rascism.

I really feel like Marcus was trying to cause some trouble, thank you for keeping a level head Mystic.

There is actually quite a touching film that I forget the name of exactly on the subject of personal rascism and how we all are in a small bit rascist. Really an eye oponer.

Well first off some of my views on religion, and my disagreements with others.

Religion is a driving force, however it is missused oftenly by those who crave power. Be it a priest or a warlord it gets bent to serve a lesser purpose of that narrow minded individual.

It is also often used as a focal point for violent actions and uprissings as well as smaller actions like terrorist bombings and shootings.

There is something out there, but I dont think we will find it any time soon, or even discover a clue as to what it is. And I like it that way, mystery is what makes life fun.

I personally dont hold many religious belief, but rather I hold a small stature of my own morals and commandements. I trust myself to follow myself.

Now as for the American Civil War, it is more of sociatal than a religious conflict, though it does later spawn the KKK which is a religiously motivated psycho-isolationist murder group. If Christians were involved in the war more than I think it would have been a lot more bloody and long. Instead the war was fought for economical reasons, which I am glad for. As much as we like to think it was faught for slavery, it wasnt, the North had another plan for slavery it just didnt work.

Even after the war in reconstruction the South stayed the same, it was only till the mid 1900 that some change actually happened.

Good point, all your other remarks are good points as well. Depending on where you are, mine or your point applies.

Yes i'm not entirely certain America is truely taking advantage in Iraq of what it learnt from the Vietnam war?

No, I've read extensively in the primary documents of the American Civil War. The North definitely did NOT have an alternative plan for slavery. In fact, most of the motivation for the northern soldiers was to end slavery, not just to keep the Union together.

But you're totally right that reconstruction was an utter mess that did perpetuate most of the problems which were in the South before the war. And when the blacks went north, they had to deal with many of the same issues they had dealt with in the South. They still do now.

Nevertheless, the Civil War was a war about slavery. And it was even though many of those in power didn't want it to be. It was the driving force beyond anybody's ability to control it.

The "insurgents", as the liberal TV and newspaper media like to call them, are Islamo Facists supplied and funded by Iran. Listen to intelligent talk radio on AM, sometimes FM, Satellite, and internet.

Listen to Michael Savage, the voice of reason in dangerous times. He is the talk radio host of 'The Savage Nation' and author of four number one best selling books. He is a Conservative Independent, not a Democrat or a Republican. Listen to him for a week then ask yourself if you can doubt his reasoning.

www.MichaelSavage.com
WWW Link
WWW Link
----------

[Quote]Explosive Talk Show Host

Best-Selling Author of 'The Savage Nation', 'The Enemy Within' and 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'[His latest best-selling book is 'The Political Zoo'.]

Explosive conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage continues to dominate the airwaves with his brash commentary and unapologetic solutions. The 10 million listeners who tune into Savage each week can't be wrong! Turn on WOR in New York, KNEW in San Francisco, WKRO in Boston, KRLA in Los Angeles. [And on various other stations throughout the nation.]

Savage is harder hitting than other conservatives. Wilder than Bill, funnier than Ann, Michael Savage is a media icon who is unafraid to take on the establishment. He pulls many of his life experiences, including that of father, son, husband, brother, ice cream factory worker, busboy, lifeguard, writer, and scientist, into his commentary.

Savage coined the terms "Compassionate Conservative" and "Islamo-Fascist," which have been hijacked by Republican speechwriters and spread like wildfire.
Explosive Talk Show Host

Best-Selling Author of 'The Savage Nation', 'The Enemy Within' and 'Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'

An independent-minded individualist, Michael Savage fits no stereotype. He attacks big government and liberal media bias, but champions the environment and animal rights.

Trained as a scientist, he holds Master’s degrees in medical botany and medical anthropology and earned his Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley in Epidemiology and Nutritional Science. He spent decades searching and saving tropical rainforests.

Savage is also the author of 18 books including three New York Times Best Sellers: "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder", “The Savage Nation” and “The Enemy Within.”

In show, books and speeches, Michael Savage electrifies and galvanizes his audiences. If you’re looking for someone with an opinion-- who isn’t afraid to tell it like it is-- he’s your man. [End Quote]

Where did you get this. Its not true, the main motivation was to keep the Union together, the end of slaver came afterwards, and that too as an economical reason, not a moral one. Basicly what the North was planning was 'elimination by confinment' in a series of compromises starting in the 1820s the South always got the short end of the stick. And in the end the North just couldnt compromise anymore and in the end the South felt threatened. Not to mention the fact that for the first time until that point they lost control of all three branches of government the President, Congress and the Judiciary, they felt like they didnt matter and left the Union.

Now the North relised that the one thing that kept the South running was slavery, and therefore they made it sort of a punishment for this treason to take away almost everything any slaver owner owned. It wasnt done for moral reasons, although some fought for them that wasnt the governments motivation. The few black regiments created during the war barely saw any action and were often used for remedial tasks like clearing the battlefield, cleaning, sewing and cooking. This was because that even the North saw them as incompetent and not ready for combat althought it was clear that they were. Their wage was even less than that of whites fighting the war, even those after the war on the Confederation side.



Not really, it was more the social and economic differances between the two sides.

Slavery played a huge role, but it wasnt what caused the war.

Actually, it was about States Rights. Slavery was the underlying cause of the debate about States Rights, but it was about States Rights nonetheless. Those in the South thought that they should have more power than the Federal government. The Federal government didn't agree. Even the Emancipation Proclaimation was worded so that it didn't free all the slaves, just those in states that were in a state of rebellion. Missouri, Kentucky And Maryland all got to keep slaves until the 13th Amendment was passed.

What's most unfortunate is that many of those in the Bush cabinet were involved in the Vietnam War, and yet they seem to have learned nothing. They still think along lines such as, "If we give up, we lose." However, war doesn't work that way. It's often quite the best thing to give up. Vietnam was utterly beyond winning, and Iraq certainly looks to be that way. Sure, we could devote 100% of our efforts to clamping down upon that particular country, but what would it really gain us? The real losers are the soldiers who are left in a state of limbo, with no winning as an option.

And before anyone says I'm anti-soldier, let me say that my cousin is a tank commander in Iraq. Like Pat Tilman, he has doubts about what this whole thing is about. But that doesn't at all make him anti-American. In my opinion, it makes him a quintessential American. We must constantly think about what our government is doing, especially if we're asked to give up our lives for its goals.

Small flaw Bush, our great Commander has close to nothing in the form of millitary education, same goes for Chaney.

I quote Stephen Colbert.

I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound — with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.