I read a thread that stated there couldn't be a Christian God. I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE THEM RIGHT OR WRONG! Most of the responses agreed with the athesist view, I was wondering if anyone does believe. I'm feelinga bit alone in my faith in a supreme being:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Let's just say I'm vaguely theist. I'm inclined to say "Don't ask me to define that."

I'm generally quite reserved with the details on two grounds. First, it's a private relationship. Second, it makes no sense to anybody but me. As long as those two things are clear, we're doing just fine.

But if I were to write it as a story, it would include the sense of purpose found among the dancing farondolae of L'Engle. The goddess herself is an Earth-generated spirit of Life; her divine benefit is that she is clued in toward that sense of purpose. The supreme cause is removed and impersonal; it is the event we call Universe; notions of gods and goddesses can become quite real in the sense that they have a measurable effect on human conduct.

I have mentioned before to Cris (somewhere, but please, I don't feel like digging that one out; it was a random aside in a strange thread I can't remember) that the goddess is somewhat a personal psychosis; it's the nearest short explanation I can give that makes any sense to anybody. The essential function of this goddess is to create a sense of center that is A) removed from me, personally; B) considerate of larger issues than individual organisms.

A) As I have lamented of other faiths, notions of redemption or salvation make religious faith an issue of greed. I'll stand on that since such a massive digression is beside our point today. But it's splattered all over a couple of debates in the Christian forum. (I recall that I harped on Tony1 on this point, but I'm not entirely sure; it's probably in one of those war-torn threads he and I left behind.) To believe in this sense of purpose in the Universe, I have come to know a goddess who makes no personal demands of me in the sense of, well ... my primary experience otherwise is with the God of the Christians. Atheism works, too, but its philosophical center does not quite suit me. (I have, before, asserted that what separates me from atheists is probably a matter of vocabulary, and nobody has been particularly inclined to argue that point, so I suppose there's that.) But this sense of purpose I've recognized relates smoothly with other, more worldly principles--such as Liberty or Community--that I've come to believe in.

B) Something about species. For what reason did we humans, who are fiercely independent and individualist, come together in the convention called society? This does come back to greed, in a way. For instance, Capitalism: it describes a condition, but what happens when it is made a cause? People's greed compels them to enrich themselves at the detriment--not merely the financial expense--of others. At some point, this enrichment becomes detrimental to the capitalist: there is a brilliant Hap Kliban pen-and-ink cartoon entitled Industrialist, which depicts a decrepit industrialist in dark glasses and a white suit sitting at a table and delicately eating a plate of severed hands with a trident fork. At some point, one's greed becomes so consuming that they create detriments in their own immediate community. Even if you're the toughest crime-boss, your own home turf eventually becomes exceptionally dangerous as a result of the conditions born of avarice. Watch the Drug War in the US, for instance; the sleeping giant is stirring. People are just starting to figure out that the Drug War is about money and that it's responsible for most of the damage it claims to fight. (Note re: money--Most libertarians on this issue fix the beginning of the modern Drug War on the 1937 Marihuana Tax Stamp Act; commercial legislation, US Constitution I.8.iii.) Okay, so the point actually being, as relates to the Goddess: By remembering my place in the living order, reminded by the fixation of the figurehead in a planetary and not individual scheme, I am more compelled to consider whether my benefit comes as a natural part of the economy sucessfully extracted, or at the direct and calculated detriment of others. The point of the Goddess being of the Spirit of Life is that she thus constantly considers as much of the whole of life as the situation either requires or allows.

So much of redemptive religion seems to fix the figurehead to a Universal scheme while refusing to consider that said figurehead might have a place for humanity in the scheme that is not the center of Creation's reason. I remember finding it impossible to work past the limits of a God that was All, yet required such individual attention; when I realized that such schemes as redemptive religions put humanity at the center of the Universe's reason for being, I also realized that this is not necessarily true.

When I belonged to a redemptive religion, I looked to God and saw myself; this was my salvation, this was my peace, this was my, my, my, mine, mine, double-mine! Or, uh ... something a little like that.

When I look at this little psychosis I've constructed to filter information, I see life. Whether or not one believes in God, life is much better for everyone around you if you stop worrying during this lifetime about salvation and just concentrate on Living.

The sense of purpose is more important to me than the figurehead, and what's nice is that she doesn't mind because that's the point. Therein lies the only personal problem I have with being atheist myself: I actually have a comeback for Camus--Yeah, mate, but that doesn't change the fact that it's all pointless. Which is odd, in a sense. My birth is actually quite the little accident; you'd think I would find some comfort in the transition from believing that humanity is a slim chance in the Unviverse--essentially an accident--to accepting that given the nature of the Universe, humanity is a statistical necessity. But being a statistical necessity isn't much better than being born of a prostitute, either. Perhaps that's why I feel no necessary kinship to the Christian Father of All, but you'd think that I would have taken some comfort from exploiting one or another atheistic perspectives on the matter. Ooh--maybe that's my little psychosis: mother issues. However, that would probably relate more to the mother I actually have as compared to a shadow of my past, so psychoanalyze all you want.

I take from theism a structure for the sense of purpose I acknowledge. I take from atheism the objective fact that the Universe is not extraneous; however we have arrived at humanity, we most certainly have arrived; we're here, we are not extraneous. I like to note that, since most of the atheists I associated with during my attempt at atheism were the bitter-artist, no-purpose-in-living, eventual heroin user philosophers, there are reasons why I developed the Camusite response I have. See? No system's perfect. Just make sure you don't accept one that claims to be.

Avoid superstion; strip it naked if you can. Life is much easier when you're not afraid. Well, okay ... you just find more important things to be afraid of, but life's like that, you know?

Is this what Michael Stipe meant when he sang, Oh no, I've said too much ... haven't said enough?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Welll..
I would definitely say I'm a theist, in the same sense that Bhuddists are....
Define your 'God' and I'll get back to you.

thecurly1
try to avoid the perversion of thought that states you should not seek the knoledge of god!
for it is great wisdom to find a superior being and learn as much as possible from it!
more so to allow it to teach you and thus learn.

groove on :)

therculy 1, you ain't alone.

That's right. Don't let the majority view get you down. You're certainly not alone in a belief of God. :cool:

Remember what Jesus tells us:

<i>"John 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
John 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."</i>

~Caleb

Yeah, count me in to! :)

Go, team, go!

Amen!

Would y'all like some skirts and pompoms? :rolleyes:

So here's the question: Walk through any Jesus Fair, right? And employ those kinds of vague affirmations of faith. Are you all praising the same version of God? Your lack of commentary seems to signify that you are all in doctrinal and interpretive consensus, and I guarantee you that's not true.

At the Jesus Fair, you might have just "Praised Him" with a man who is reinforced by your praise because he feels the kinship of others who think that Jesus wants him to rid the world of blacks and jews.

Might I suggest a little better effort to actualize the potential of that cheer-squad faith?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Puh-leeze.

--Tiassa :cool:

Why is is that most people, when attempting to defend their god or religious beliefs immediately swing into the "quotes" from some version of the bible or other? Do these god fearing people not have a mind of their own? As for their literacy, I will put that down to typing errors which we are all prone to, as we don't have a god to guide our hands! Religious zealots spout the almighty, threats of eternal damnation and this goddamn bible thing - they have no originality of thought. If you actually believe in the existence of god - in whatever form, then that's fine by me but please stop spouting all that religious claptrap and threatening me with hellfire. There is no hell by the way - the only place we go to after this is utopia - THIS existence is hell! I had better define that Utopian statement hadn't I? I think that there is a life after this, on purely personal grounds, but I do. However, I think it is in the form of "astral planes" - a further stage in evolution of the mind - not the soul - the mind. Consider this, if when we die, there is nothing, just "black" - what was the point of us being here? Not to serve HIM who must be obeyed, but to earn our stripes so to speak. Like the god lovers - I can't prove a word, but it will be intersting to find out, but I'm in no rush!!:rolleyes:

To be honest, Bobby, I originally posted the cheerleader slam while in a moment of foul temper; I do, however, think it funny that the only person giving an answer in this topic that amounts to more than a cheap, sound-bite affirmation isn't Christian.

But it was a provocative slam, and I figured your biblical turnaround missed the mark just enough: You criticized the board in my own eye--well, I, for one, gave a few minutes thought to my answer to the topic before posting; board accommodated. I could, just as easily, let the fluffy, pompom affirmations go without a word of comment, and it would probably be best if I did.

But you don't seem to be intentionally sidelining the topic (Loone), threatening people (Lawdog), or posting evidence against your opponents that you would not accept as true within your own system (various); neither the stupidity, the menace, nor the hypocrisy is there to lash at. So if I'm just going to stick my nose in and sneeze at everyone ... well, I gotta expect something in return, right? ;)

But, cheerleader slams aside, I am curious about what it means to a Christian to vaguely praise God: we know about human diversity.

As an example: in high school, I was associated with a family that experienced ... well, internal difficulties. When all shook out, there were three opinions present: what Daddy did was wrong; Daddy didn't do it; and Daddy may have been wrong or not, but you shouldn't dishonor your parents by saying such nasty things about them.

Whether or not Daddy did the wrong thing is something never satisfactorily dismissed, but that's my opinion ten years later. What was most disturbing was the segment of this family's church that felt the children were in a state of unrepentant sin for telling people what had happened. When I look across an aisle at them and here them praising Jesus, I wonder how their heart sits with God; I will not praise Him who endorses the abuse of a child.

I expected to find a comfortable solidarity in paganism: I did not. Rather, and what still impresses me today, these spirits are unwilling to set aside personal values of moral right and wrong merely to achieve the appearance of solidarity. And that taught me more than any number of years among the Christians. But I do wonder whether or not y'all give a rip about those things. You may possibly be celebrating a God who believes in things you find immoral, and doing so because solidarity is more important than propriety; when an entire community is improper, you're all damned, and God doesn't seem to care about the young spirits who never had a chance to experience His mercy in its truest form. (Okay, I'm stopping here because it seems I'm extending the argument into yet another facet.)

Diversity is a wonderful thing in the world, except where solidarity and homogony are required: e.g. Christian faith. I'm just curious whether or not the situation is recognized; how one deals with it is entirely another subject.

You might cross paths with someone at a religious festival; you might say, Praise Jesus. The person who says it back to you is comforted by your solidarity, and your faith in Jesus who is on his side because we're all imperfect sinners, so raping his daughters is forgiveable, but what's with that Devil's influence making them talk so horribly about their parents?

You can, with that vague affirmation, encourage greater harm to human spirits and bodies, and to the mission of your Christ most holy.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

...wondering if Tiassa has left anything for me to say, LOL.

I am pagan, and worship a divine being loosely identified as Mother Earth in Her female aspect, and the GreenMan in His male aspect. I'm probably a bit more religious about it that Tiassa is, but overall I think he and I have similar thoughts on the subject.

I do not think that Mother Nature and her son Herne want to be worshipped? Respect would be more in line with their doctrine. Respect for the planet we live on, respect for her forests and waters, as with the native american - they were more in tune, so I have been told, with nature than anyone.....

Red Devil,

Although I was quite sure you were referring to 'Hermes', decided to check and found that 'Herne' is a small city in W.Germany, in the Ruhr area. The question is, was it a typo or something else, a Pagan thing?

Also, I wouldn't bet my moccasins on the Native Americans. Their 'being in tune with nature' was more a matter of lack of technology, relatively small numbers in a large land, and being nomadic. They'd just move on then things got too yucky and when they returned, Mother Nature had pretty well done her thing. They had more respect for the animals they depended on than the land, something they lived on but didn't 'own' in the European sense. But, they did protect their 'territory'.

The way I see it is that these people lived their lives in a way which made least impact on their. They knew they would return to that land...

anyways you can claim that their impact was small because a lack of technology but I would suggest that it was deliberate. I.e. they didn't try to change the land through technology because of their lifestyle (i.e. one with nature). Take a look at europeans and the first thing they did is clear the forest and start a farm, domesticate the animals, damn rivers, etc etc etc.....I would think that native Americans would have been able to achieve all these things IF they wanted them.

By the time the Europeans came to this continent they were already an agrarian/technological culture. The Native Americans for the most part were hunter/gatherers except for a couple of groups in the South West (the Hopi and the Anasazi/Pueblo).

As to what they would have achieved 'IF they had wanted them' can't really be discussed. How do you 'want' something you have no knowledge of? Further, for the most part, they had everything they needed since their needs were in keeping with what was available. And it wasn't because they were 'one with nature', that was purely a European creation - Just like the 'noble savage'.

Fine I'll Concede (sp?), however not because you made a point which convinced me I was wrong but because this is an argument too hard to have (if that makes sense). You will claim they didn't impact the land because they were too primitive and I'll argue that it was a choice of theirs...at the end of the day neigher of us will be any closer to what is true.....

I too live in a country that has nomadic, primitve native people..and euro's here also killed them off took land which they claimed didn't belong to anyone (because they are nomadic)...and claimed their culture only respected the land because they were too primitive to destroy it...however if you look at the culture you HAVE to atleast entertain the fact that maybe these people were happy to stay primitive because of their kinship to the land....At least all the aboriginal lores/myths are very much to do with the land...they actually call it mother.
Also the aboriginals had contact with advanced cultures as did the native americans....and that influence didn't advance the native people....

No, chagur, I meant Herne. Here in the UK Herne is the "son of nature" and, without researching it, has been for thousands of years. I will check it out and get back to you.

LOL, I suppose I figured nobody would know what I was talking about enough to be picky with my wording.

You're right, "worship" is the wrong word, I used it because I thought it would be understood best here.

Herne is a God, He's the leader of the wild hunt in Anglo-saxon legend. He's sometimes seen as another version of Cernunnos, who leads the wild hunt for the Celts, or Odin who leads the wild hunt for the Teutonic peoples. (I got this last bit out of my dictionary, I'm not personally familiar with any legends with Odin leading a Wild Hunt...) I actually happen to have a little pewter statue of Herne on my computer - He is depicted as a man wearing a loincloth and a deer headdress, horns intact. He carrys a knife and a staff with a crescent moon at the top. One of the many versions of the God showing His connection with nature and the wild beasts in particular.

But back to "worship" - I should more accurately say I recognize the connection between myself and the natural world around me. I recognize divinity in nature, and I respect those forces and invite them into my life. My holidays and celebrations center around attunement to the seasons. I mold my life around the planet - I do my best to minimize any negative impact I have upon this globe. My church would consist of the whole world - anywhere wild and free is my temple.

Sound better? :)

Save yourself the effort, found it with the help of 'Google' (aren't search engines great?) Should have known better than to have relied on a single source ... and been a bit less arrogant. My apologies.

"Herne the Hunter" - fascinating, and a myth I wasn't familiar with.

Thanks.

Chagur

Chagur - even better than google is a little known but widely used (here anyway) program called web ferret from www.ferretsoft.com its a freebie and searches all the search engines for you, I use it for every project that I do. Supreme program and FREE!! :D

Downloaded, installed, gave it a quick check ... awsome!

Thanks much! Hope to return the favor some day.

Chagur

Glad you liked it - always glad to be of service!

Originally posted by thecurly1
I read a thread that stated there couldn't be a Christian God. I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE THEM RIGHT OR WRONG! Most of the responses agreed with the athesist view, I was wondering if anyone does believe. I'm feelinga bit alone in my faith in a supreme being
Plenty believe.

You're not the only one this has happened to...

And he said, I have been very jealous for the LORD God of hosts: for the children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword; and I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.
(1 Kings 19:10, KJV).

God's answer...
Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.
(1 Kings 19:18, KJV).

You would do well to remember the parable of the sower...

A sower went out to sow his seed: and as he sowed, some fell by the way side; and it was trodden down, and the fowls of the air devoured it.
And some fell upon a rock; and as soon as it was sprung up, it withered away, because it lacked moisture.
And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprang up with it, and choked it.
And other fell on good ground, and sprang up, and bare fruit an hundredfold. And when he had said these things, he cried, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.
(Luke 8:5-8, KJV).

As you will notice, the first thing that happens is the fowls of the air dive in...

Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
(Luke 8:11,12, KJV).

The very first attack is a flurry of "fowls" to take away the word from your heart, if they can.

It is worth looking at some of the posts by tiassa. They are a great source for the various forms and devices used by those "fowls."
A huge flurry of crap.

Originally posted by tiassa
I recall that I harped on Tony1 on this point, but I'm not entirely sure; it's probably in one of those war-torn threads he and I left behind.
Fun, though, isn't it?

Sooner or later, I'm hoping that you realize that you may wish to live.

I remember finding it impossible to work past the limits of a God that was All, yet required such individual attention; when I realized that such schemes as redemptive religions put humanity at the center of the Universe's reason for being, I also realized that this is not necessarily true.
I find it rather sad that, in throwing out Catholicism, you also threw out the possibility of non-corporeal beings whose sole purpose is to waylay you, somewhat the same way there are people called thieves whose sole purpose is to waylay you.

Some of your thoughts are supplied by such.

Would y'all like some skirts and pompoms?
No.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Why is is that most people, when attempting to defend their god or religious beliefs immediately swing into the "quotes" from some version of the bible or other?
Saves time, plus the word of God has power on its own to perform what is needed.
Do these god fearing people not have a mind of their own?
You quote Carl Sagan. Do you not have a mind of your own?
Religious zealots spout the almighty, threats of eternal damnation and this goddamn bible thing - they have no originality of thought.
There is only one outcome for those who do not believe in God.

Besides, there is only one truth. For originality, you can seek the many lies that exist.
If you actually believe in the existence of god - in whatever form, then that's fine by me but please stop spouting all that religious claptrap and threatening me with hellfire.
No threat.
But if you feel threatened by hell fire, it might be worth finding out why.
There is no hell by the way - the only place we go to after this is utopia - THIS existence is hell!
Hell is the grave.
Everyone goes there.
I had better define that Utopian statement hadn't I? I think that there is a life after this, on purely personal grounds, but I do. However, I think it is in the form of "astral planes" - a further stage in evolution of the mind - not the soul - the mind.
That is an unusually fine distinction.
The Greek word for soul is "psyche," which, coincidentally, is used in the word "psychology," which, in turn, is referred to as the science of the mind.
Consider this, if when we die, there is nothing, just "black" - what was the point of us being here? Not to serve HIM who must be obeyed, but to earn our stripes so to speak. Like the god lovers - I can't prove a word, but it will be intersting to find out, but I'm in no rush!!
No rush?
You plan to live a long time.

Originally posted by Cupric
I am pagan, and worship a divine being loosely identified as Mother Earth in Her female aspect, and the GreenMan in His male aspect. I'm probably a bit more religious about it that Tiassa is, but overall I think he and I have similar thoughts on the subject.
You probably think Christianity sounds nuts.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Respect for the planet we live on, respect for her forests and waters, as with the native american - they were more in tune, so I have been told, with nature than anyone.....
You would have to have been told that.
There is little evidence for it

Buffalo jumps were an interesting idea for being "in tune" with nature. Run the entire herd off a cliff, and skin the top few for hides, and something to eat.

BTW, do you know what the feathers on the headdresses mean?
Each feather was received for killing another native american, while being "in tune" with nature, of course.

Of course, more in line with being "in tune" with nature, each feather was an eagle feather.

Originally posted by Chagur
Their 'being in tune with nature' was more a matter of lack of technology, relatively small numbers in a large land, and being nomadic. They'd just move on then things got too yucky and when they returned, Mother Nature had pretty well done her thing.
Europeans were in tune with nature like that, at one point, too.
Of course, some Europeans learned to clean up their own "yucky" stuff.
How did the Europeans learn technology, anyway?
And, weren't Europeans nomadic, too?

As to what they would have achieved 'IF they had wanted them' can't really be discussed. How do you 'want' something you have no knowledge of?
How did the Europeans end up with the knowledge of things, while at the same time the native americans didn't?

It seems the native americans were too busy killing each other to invent things like the Europeans did.

It is a spurious argument to claim that one group was nomadic and the other wasn't, when both groups were at one time.
What were the native americans doing while the Europeans were progressing?

The claims of science are that both groups were nomadic hunter/gatherers 10-12,000 years ago.
Why the huge difference by the 1800's?

My church would consist of the whole world - anywhere wild and free is my temple.
I guess your church is getting smaller by the minute.

Just a couple of notes, since I think we may have hit some progress in the Montesquieu thread that; I'd rather see what comes of that, first, but I did want to comment on one part of the present topic:Fun, though, isn't it?

Sooner or later, I'm hoping that you realize that you may wish to live. * I agree that it's usually quite fun; the threats of violence against a cultural tradition and the endorsements of murder (Lawdog) were disturbing enough, but the mudslinging generally stays on the pleasantly-frustrating side of things.

* ... wish to live: I would refer you back to the Montesquieu thread; I choose not to comment until I have a better perspective on an issue I've addressed to you there.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

"Europeans were in tune with nature like that, at one point, too."

Like around four to five thousand BC, and even then, only in Northern Europe.

"...some Europeans learned to clean up their own "yucky" stuff."

For the most part, at the time they discovered the New World, they were still throwing their 'night soil' out the window.

"How did the Europeans learn technology, anyway?"

Through warfare mostly.

"And, weren't Europeans nomadic, too?"

See first reply.

"How did the Europeans end up with the knowledge of things, while at the same time the native americans didn't?"

Contact with North Africa and Asia, which the Native Americans did not have.

"It seems the native americans were too busy killing each other to invent things like the Europeans did."

Just the opposite, see third reply.

"What were the native americans doing ... "

The obvious: Surviving.

Isn't it odd that the concept of 'taking coupe' was indiginous to Native Americans ... for all their supposed killing of each other? And that 'raiding parties' were the norm rather than warfare?

Yes, I was told that the Native American was very much in tune with nature - by a full blood cherokee! Who, incidently, is well versed in the "old ways" and is trying to keep it alive, by teaching young "natives" the way...........

Originally posted by Chagur
"Europeans were in tune with nature like that, at one point, too."

Like around four to five thousand BC, and even then, only in Northern Europe.
So, this excuses the native american how?

"...some Europeans learned to clean up their own "yucky" stuff."

For the most part, at the time they discovered the New World, they were still throwing their 'night soil' out the window.
Is that what the original poster was talking about when referring to "yucky stuff?"

"How did the Europeans learn technology, anyway?"

Through warfare mostly.
So, you're saying the native american didn't learn?

"And, weren't Europeans nomadic, too?"

See first reply.
So, Europeans being nomadic allowed them to learn, but the same doesn't apply to the native american?
What was wrong with them, in your view?

"How did the Europeans end up with the knowledge of things, while at the same time the native americans didn't?"

Contact with North Africa and Asia, which the Native Americans did not have.
Your point appears to be that the Europeans didn't learn on their own.
So how did the Africans and the Asians learn things?
Who were they in contact with?

"It seems the native americans were too busy killing each other to invent things like the Europeans did."

Just the opposite, see third reply.
The native americans were too busy NOT killing each other to learn things?
A unique sociological theory, too busy NOT doing something to learn.
"What were the native americans doing ... "

The obvious: Surviving.
So, while Europe was easy to survive in, America wasn't?
Why are the non-native americans doing so well, then?

Isn't it odd that the concept of 'taking coupe' was indiginous to Native Americans ... for all their supposed killing of each other? And that 'raiding parties' were the norm rather than warfare?
And I suppose you think the "raiding parties" were all about panty raids?
Your head is stuck deep in the sand.

Originally posted by Red Devil
Yes, I was told that the Native American was very much in tune with nature - by a full blood cherokee!
Of course, if someone told you that Jesus is Lord, you wouldn't believe that.

Being "in tune" with nature doesn't necessarily mean wrapping yourself in animal skins.
After all, wrapping yourself in animal skins means that animals had to die.
I wonder if those animals felt in tune with nature, as arrows, which aren't natural, were piercing their hide?
If the native americans were as "in tune" as they claim to be, why didn't they make clothes from cotton, linen and wool, all of which are natural?

Your comment If the native americans were as "in tune" as they claim to be, why didn't they make clothes from cotton, linen and wool, all of which are natural?put the seal on what I was beginning to believe: You're totally ignorant of Native American life and culture.

They, the Native Americans, never 'claimed it'; they lived it. It was modern, Anglo, myth that went from the 'ignorant savages' (the level you appear to be at) to the 'noble savage' and then to the 'in tune with nature' bull.

Go back to arguing religion where 'real' is whatever you want it to be.

Chagur :eek:

Originally posted by Chagur
...the 'in tune with nature' bull.
looks like you've got a problem with Red Devil and the Cherokees.

They said it, I didn't.

The problem I have is with you and your apparent ignorance of not only Native American culture but also of a number of other things. Like that flax was not indiginous to North America. Native cotton and certain grasses which were, and later wool, were woven by the Navajo and Pueblo at least six to seven hundred years prior to the coming of the Spanish to this continent.

I think you have missed your calling. You have a talent that most movie ad writers would envy in that you can extract a few words and using them out of context, support you position. Or at least attempt to.

So Tony1 - anything I say and anything I believe is rubbish! What gives yout the right to be right - omnipotently? Instead of an intelligent discussion on whether the native american was in tune or not in tune with nature - you have decided that we are all wrong and only you is right. Manitou was real to the native american and their teachings/acts went accordingly. Love thy environment, replace what you remove etc etc. That is in tune with nature to a certain extent, your idea of being in tune with nature is obviously Bon Jovi singing a country and western song about fruitcakes in the springtime! Now, as a Brit, who lost the colony to the very same people who then very nearly wiped out these native americans, I can only go by what I read, research and what I am told. Therefore I do not form an opinion until I know what I am talking about, or at least I THINK I know what I am talking about. You appear to have neither researched your arguement nor "planned it out". The Native American was far more in tune with nature than you may think. The Europeans, on the other hand, did not give a toss about nature, uprooting entire forests cause some bandit was hiding there is not exactly environmentally friendly - just one example that I know of. Chernobyl was not e.f. either. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Chagur
The problem I have is with you ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Chagur
...the 'in tune with nature' bull.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Red Devil
So Tony1 - anything I say and anything I believe is rubbish!
See above.
I believe it was Chagur who called it "bull."
What gives yout the right to be right - omnipotently?
It comes with the territory.

Instead of an intelligent discussion on whether the native american was in tune or not in tune with nature - you have decided that we are all wrong and only you is right.
Let the chips fall where they may.
Manitou was real to the native american and their teachings/acts went accordingly. Love thy environment, replace what you remove
What did you say, "replace what you remove"?
I guess they still owe several million buffalo.
Not the ones they ate, but the ones they ran off the cliffs to rot in the sun.
Look up "buffalo jump" some day, when you get a chance.

The Native American was far more in tune with nature than you may think.
Oh, they live pretty naturally, alright.
The Europeans, on the other hand, ...
How would you describe the difference in the level of, oh say, civilization, between the two groups in the year, let's say, 1775?

What did you say, "replace what you remove"?
I guess they still owe several million buffalo.
Not the ones they ate, but the ones they ran off the cliffs to rot in the sun.
Look up "buffalo jump" some day, when you get a chance. Yeah ... whatever. We know about the buffalo jump. :rolleyes:

Nonetheless, the buffalo did not get nearly wiped out until it was the white man doing the hunting.How would you describe the difference in the level of, oh say, civilization, between the two groups in the year, let's say, 1775?Indigenous: 4
Europeans: 0

The Europeans--the eventual Americans--destroyed everything in their path. They especially liked destroying the people who lived here first.

Sure, the locals were behind the times technologically; and, sure, some of them fought with their neighbors. But European-American civilization was anything but civilized. Americans would go on and wage biological warfare against the tribes. How repugnant can you get?

I consider Thanksgiving Day in the US to be a cultural slap in the face. It would be like Germany celebrating the Kristallnacht. And look at what we think of the Germans who do and get airtime on Frontline, or some such. Columbus Day? Given the technological advantage, why don't the Germans celebrate Hitler's birthday? Hint: They don't. And for a reason, too. They figured it out. Of course, I disagree with what I've been told about speech laws in Germany, but I'm not there so I figure that's something for the people to decide.It comes with the territory.I think you've just confessed to living a delusion. At last, we can move forward.

Otherwise, explain yourself. We'd all like to see that one.

:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
We know about the buffalo jump.
You mean you've heard of it.

Indigenous: 4
Europeans: 0
The indigenous were 4 times as civilized as the Europeans?
Are you sure it wasn't 3.987 times?

The Europeans--the eventual Americans--destroyed everything in their path. They especially liked destroying the people who lived here first.
Of course, the native Americans destroyed every trace of the people before them.
Or, do you have some evidence proving otherwise?

Sure, the locals were behind the times technologically; and, sure, some of them fought with their neighbors.
Some of them?
But European-American civilization was anything but civilized.
Why is it called civilization, then?

I consider Thanksgiving Day in the US to be a cultural slap in the face.
What's stopping you from moving to a better country?

Indigenous: 4
Europeans: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The indigenous were 4 times as civilized as the Europeans?
Are you sure it wasn't 3.987 times? You've missed, Tony. But we're not surprised.

Four times as civilized would put the score at 4-1.

Whether the score is 1-0 or 1 googleplex to 0 makes no difference. Despite the faults of the indigenous cultures--and all human cultures have faults--the tribes were infinitely more civilized than Europeans.Of course, the native Americans destroyed every trace of the people before them.
Or, do you have some evidence proving otherwise?Can you provide evidence of those peoples? The Anasazi, perhaps? Mitochondrial DNA studies show links between peoples of Asia and the indigenous American tribes. In order for your point to be legitimate, you would have to show who was here before, when they were eliminated, and how they were eliminated, just for starters. Why is always a good thing; it's quite telling. But I wouldn't demand that; the literary record only goes so far back in history, so it's not likely anyone remembers.Why is it called civilization, then? Because the Europeans liked to pretend they were civilized. The word stuck for lack of allowable diversity.What's stopping you from moving to a better country?Ahh ... the old slogan: America, love it or leave it. See, Tony, that's the point of having a revolution against the British crown in the first place. The intent was to build a society where people were not compelled to leave for such stupid reasons as a bunch of Christians trying to homogonize the population through ostracism and destruction. Read the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Oh, wait, I forgot you had no use for history. Too bad; maybe then you'd realize how ridiculous you're being.

Try some remedial math while you're at it ... in fact--reading, math, history ... sounds like you need to start at about the fourth grade and try the whole thing over.

:rolleyes:
Tiassa :cool:

"Can you provide evidence of those peoples? The Anasazi, perhaps? Mitochondrial DNA studies show links between peoples of Asia and the indigenous American tribes. In order for your point to be legitimate, you would have to show who was here before, when they were eliminated, and how they were eliminated, just for starters. Why is always a good thing; it's quite telling. But I wouldn't demand that; the literary record only goes so far back in history, so it's not likely anyone remembers."

According to archaeologists etc - the Anastsi suddenly uprooted and left due to some climatic upheaval which dried up their water source and devasted their agriculture.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I believe you have the point exactly. It does not appear to be the Anasazi destroyed by the tribes encountered by the Europeans.

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by tiassa
Despite the faults of the indigenous cultures--and all human cultures have faults--the tribes were infinitely more civilized than Europeans.
I guess I didn't miss by as much as you suggested.
Infinitely more civilized would put the score close to 4-0.

In any case, why would I, or anyone, take your word for the level of civilization?
Do you actually believe the noble savage theory?

Can you provide evidence of those peoples?
That would be your job, since you made the claim that the native Americans were first.
(*They especially liked destroying the people who lived here first. *)

In order for your point to be legitimate, you would have to show who was here before, when they were eliminated, and how they were eliminated, just for starters. Why is always a good thing; it's quite telling.
Again, that would be your burden, since you made the claim that the native Americans were here first.
The onus is on you to prove that they were here first.

Because the Europeans liked to pretend they were civilized.
The native Americans didn't even bother to pretend?

Ahh ... the old slogan: America, love it or leave it.
Well, your slogan, anyway.
I simply asked why you wouldn't move to a better country.

Try some remedial math while you're at it ... in fact--reading, math, history ... sounds like you need to start at about the fourth grade and try the whole thing over.
Perhaps the infinity thing stumped you.

Life is the dynamic flame that flickers behind perception to cast a shadow on reality. The supreme being is the fuel the flame consumes. Be free. Free is not free. Truth is a bed of hot coals and pain is the price. Eat nachos and be happy. Eat nachos and shout from your bedroom window<cheese dripping from your chin>"I AM A REBEL!!"

if you asked me "do i believe" i would say yes. i believe there was a creator, some-thing that started everything off( or something to that degree). if you asked me wether i would like to know all the answers to everything i would say "YES" but once i found out, about God the universe and everything, i probable would have wished i didn't and that i listed to my 'older one' who once said,
ignorance is bliss

I'm feelinga bit alone in my faith in a supreme being.
You`re not alone. God has His Christ. Certainly the followers of Christ are Christians.

The Last Resort - The Eagles

She came from Providence,
the one in Rhode Island
Where the old world shadows hang
heavy in the air
She packed her hopes and dreams
like a refugee
Just as her father came across the sea
She heard about a place people were smilin'
They spoke about the red man's way,
and how they loved the land
And they came from everywhere
to the Great Divide
Seeking a place to stand
or a place to hide

Down in the crowded bars,
out for a good time,
Can't wait to tell you all,
what it's like up there
And they called it paradise
I don't know why
Somebody laid the mountains low
while the town got high

Then the chilly winds blew down
Across the desert
through the canyons of the coast, to
the Malibu
Where the pretty people play,
hungry for power
to light their neon way
and give them things to do

Some rich men came and raped the land,
Nobody caught 'em
Put up a bunch of ugly boxes, and Jesus,
people bought 'em
And they called it paradise
The place to be
They watched the hazy sun, sinking in the sea

You can leave it all behind
and sail to Lahaina
just like the missionaries did, so many years ago
They even brought a neon sign: "Jesus is coming"
Brought the white man's burden down
Brought the white man's reign

Who will provide the grand design?
What is yours and what is mine?
'Cause there is no more new frontier
We have got to make it here

We satisfy our endless needs and justify our bloody deeds,
in the name of destiny and in the name of God

And you can see them there,
On Sunday morning
They stand up and sing about
what it's like up there
They call it paradise
I don't know why
You call someplace paradise,
kiss it goodbye

Best song ever. I just found it relevant to the discussion.

enton: You`re not alone. God has His Christ. Certainly the followers of Christ are Christians.

*************
M*W: Assuming for one split second that Jesus Christ actually walked on Planet Earth, his followers were NOT, I repeat NOT, Christians. They were Jews. You may think you are a follower of Christ, but you're really a follower of Paul, if he existed. Therefore, Jesus Christ was a mythological character in a book, and those who follow his mythological teachings (or the mythological writings of Paul), are following an imaginary and/or mythological invention. It is the ultimate self-delusion.

Counter intuitively does God believe in anyone anymore?

"Does any one believe in any God anymore?" I would like it if they did'nt, but unfortunately, some people not in control of there own faculties do.