green

Well, if I were a believer I would find myself unable to believe in the God which you dish up. Indeed it was a variant on this God, a God which was served up to me in Religious Knowledge classes, which caused me to drift off into agnosticism. Still later I became an atheist. I guess we will have to agree to disagree. As for your sex, thanks for clearing that up. I was confused and thus the gender-shifts in my replies to you.

Green is dreaming of Bali. She's never been there and her passport is current.

Yep, let's Green and BJean run off to Bali together. I just spoke to my signif other and he said he would be okay with that. I'm game if you are.

As for Allah, well, Allah is the Arabic word for God just as Dieu is the French word for God. Now, Islam is founded upon Judeo-Christian teachings and sacred books. The Muslims argue that Islam is the final flowering of the sacred teachings. Certainly Islam is the most recent variant of this group of religions, a group which share common roots and which were all born in the deserts of the Middle East. Issa/Jesus is considered to be a prophet in Islam. They hold Jesus in high regard. They just don't think that He was the Son of God is all.

Who should play nice? Cusano? I agree. The dude is smug, smarmy, an irritant, and judgemental. I would say that he is filled with his own ego, not with God. He is an old gas bag who is in love with himself. His sin would be that of Pride. This is a cat who has only sought to prove himself right since entering LBT. He has betrayed no evidence of interest in the give and take of the conversations which take place on this site. Now, these are discussions which strike me as being worthy of engagement for we have discussed a number of contentious issues: gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, the war in Iraq, health and welfare systems in the United States, racism, sexism, size-ism, you name it. These are interesting discussions which deal with modern issues. Our friends who are professed Christians have come at these issues with a wide variety of view points, all of them interesting and with value. The non Christians have also responded with their specific points of view. Though specific beliefs have been challenged within the framework of a given discussion no one here has had their beliefs or lack thereof disrespected . Cusano herself initially entered LBT with a post concerning the issue of anti-Semitism in France. Green has contributed a coupla posts concerning this but it would appear that Cusano's agenda is far removed from any concern regarding la belle France et des semites. Indeed, Cusano has come in order to flap her tongue and sit in judgement of all individuals who do not conform to her requirements; as to these, it would seem that she wants all folks to be Christians and that they must, moreover, profess to being Christians according to the rules set down by Cusano herself. Oh Cusano, do you not think that your God (if He exists) would not have a large enough spirit to accept Mankind in its infinite variety? Afterall, the Dude made us and made us with joy, didn't He?

Gadget's gonna have a long, long phone line because anything more up to date is a theory. (Sorry, Gadget! I know that that is a cheap shot and I am fond of you. I just can't resist being a goof!)

Au contraire, you write very well, grrl, and do yourself a misjustice with respect to your assessment of your intellect as well. Although I am personally often mistrustful of passion - it is so often backed up with nothing more than sound bite philosophy - it strikes me that your concern, and that of TOM and of many, many others of the people who post here is with the democratisation of America. My hunch is that you are concerned that a lot of voices have become lost over the past 3 decades or so, that the very folks whom the Statue of Liberty once welcomed have no longer a place in America. Of course the issue is, with respect to the illegals, how? (There is, ironically, quite a large number of Canucks - both legal and illegal - infesting your country, too.:heh: ) Europe has dealt with that problem by allowing all members of the Economic Union countries to move and work freely within the Union. North America has NAFTA but this does not extend to the movement of personnel. Both Canada and America have need of citizens who will undertake those jobs which longtime Canadians and Americans are not interested in. We need nannies, cabbies, gardeners, security guards, cleaners, etc. These might be considered level entry jobs, a way of paying for your entry into your new country. Both Canada and America are losing well-paid unionized blue collar jobs to Mexico where the labour is cheap and the environmental and labour safety laws are nonexistent. Companies can do this because of NAFTA and shareholders and senior company personnel profit. This is nice for the rich folks but distressing for those families who find themselves without jobs. For those towns which are single-economy based towns it is a disaster. For those young Americans and Canadians who are not cut out to be professionals or technicians the disappearance of these manufacturing jobs is bad news. As for the environment, well, we must remember that environmental pollution never remains a purely local issue. The Sh$t does drift. Green's unpopular and probably dim-witted solution would be to reframe NAFTA so that this alliance becomes closer in style to that of the European Economic Union. By doing this Mexico would no longer be an economic colony of the northern countries and the issue of illegal immigration would be put to rest. Mexicans could then legally move northward in order to work but Mexico would also be subject to our labour standards with respect to health, the environment, and pay for work. As the Mexican working conditions improve there will be fewer migrants; folks like to stay where they are socially at home. And maybe too, once labour in Mexico is not such a bargain some of those jobs that left the rust belts of the north might make their way back there. As for Canada, your northern neighbour, our population is very small: we only number 35 million and we follow the European demographic profile. We are not very good at having babies. We really rely on immigration in order to keep our population and our economy growing. We have a big problem up here in the great white north. Maybe we could do with an injection of Mexican-Canadians. Taco-Bell has already colonized Canada.

Indeed, you are right, TOM, and when I was very, very young I found it odd that the Arabs should detest the Jews. I remember running to my Daddy for the answer to this puzzle. I lived in France in the early 1980s and I still have friends who live there. And of course I follow the news. The majority of French are comfortably racist - political correctness seems to be a North American construct - and they do not welcome the Arabs who live there. It could be argued that the Arabs occupy the same psychic space for the French that the Blacks and now the Hispanics do for so many Americans. Many of them are poor and live in high rise ghettos that ring the cities and it is true that these areas are characterised by violent crime. Some of my closest friends were Arabs. I am still in touch with many of them. These are guys who are highly educated professionals who hold doctorats in their fields and who have impressive careers. Nevertheless, when on the street or when looking for an appartment to rent they are discriminated against. A friend of mine was not allowed to enter a bistro with us because he was Arab. This is a man who routinely dealt with presidents and CEOs of major companies. And with respect to that, he mentioned that he would invariably be treated badly by the receptionist or secretary until he mentioned his name and that he had an appointment. My friends who live in France, those who are French and those who are Arab, report to me that the situation concerning the ease, comfort and safety of all Semites is not equivalent to that of the French. News reports back this up. In fairness to the French I can say that they are not particularly welcoming to any foreigners and this is often expressed in a vivid rudeness. They can be a conservative lot. You kinda have to earn your stripes. While I was there I lived in Provence. The locals used to bitterly complain about the Parisians, their own countrymen, when they drifted south for their summer holidays. I would see graffiti telling those northerners to go home!

Canada is also a country made up of immigrants. Our two official languages are English and French but the city where I live, which is the 6th largest in North America, is largely comprised of immigrants. (My own parents were immigrants in fact.) Toronto is a city which is comprised of neighbourhoods where you will find conglomerations from the same parts of the world tend to live. These are the newcomers and more often than not their English skills are poor to nonexistant. Living in the same neighbourhood with folks who come from the same neighbourhood allows these immigrants to achieve a degree of social and psychological comfort while they ease their way into this society. These folks do, however, come in contact with mainstream Canadian society for they become the folks who operate the corner stores, drive taxis, nanny children, work behind donut store counters, and work in the ethnic stores and restaurants that serve their own community. Of course we Canadians also like to go to the ethnic stores and restaurants and so the cultures will meet. When the newcomers land in trouble with the law the taxpayer is on the hook for a translator. When material concerning property taxes or other city matters is sent out it is sent in all the languages of the neighbourhood as well as in English. Politicians who are running for office do the same with their printed materials. It is their children who integrate of course. They are the ones who learn to speak and act Canadian. This is how immigration works. I should mention that Canada also has immigration problems. We have illegal immigrants. There is one elderly illegal immigrant from St. Lucia who needs heart surgery. Should the Canadian taxpayer fund this? This is currently under debate. Canada has also made the rules for legal immigration so stringent that we are siphoning off the educated elite of third world countries only to inform them once that they are here that our professional institutions don't recognise their qualifications; they then are forced into taking all those jobs that Canadians don't want. At the same time our new government recently deported a huge number of Portuguese construction workers who had been living and working here for ten to fifteen years. These men were skilled labourers and the backbone of this industry. I guess I mention all of this because I feel that a nation can accomodate the special language needs of newcomers without the loss of the dominant language. Moreover, this is particulary true of English; English has become the true international language, the language of dominance, of power, and of diplomacy. Adult immigrants may or may not be able to acquire skill in English. Some people are better at learning foreign languages than others. But they certainly will demand that their children speak English like Americans.

19th century Europeans did not hold enlightened views about their fellow human beings. They were a long way from being politically correct.

You haven't done a lot of reading, have you?

Cusano says biblical prophecies, Green says biblical incoherencies. Read on! God is satisfied with his works; Gen 1:31 Oh no, He's not! Gen 6:6 God dwells in chosen temples: 2 Chron 7:12,16 or does he? Acts 7:48 God gives freely to those who ask: James 1:5/Luke 11:10 but He also withholds His blessings from those who ask: John 12:40/Josh 11:20/Is 63:17 God is either warlike - Ex 15:3/Is 51:15 or He is peaceful - Rom 15:33/Cor 14:33 And sometimes killing is commanded -Ex 32:27 but sometimes it is forbidden - Ex 20:13 Then there is this case of adultery: yes - Num 31:18/Hos 1:2, 2:1-3 or no - Ex 20:14/Heb 13:4 There are many more of these contradictions but I will move on in order that I might display some of the contradictions in the speculative doctrines. Christ is equal to God. John 10:30/Phil 2:5 Christ is not equal. John 14:28/matt 24:36 Jesus was all powerful Matt28:18/John 3:35 Jesus was not all powerful MARK 6:5 Man is justified by faith alone Rom 3:20/Gal 2:16/Gal 3:11,12/Rom 4:2 Man is not justified by faith alone James 2:21,24/Rom 2:13 The fruit of God's spirit is love and gentleness Gal 5:2 or it is vengeance and fury Judg 15:14/1 Sam 18:10,11 I could lay my hands on many more of these contradictions and I could discuss other unsavory aspects of the Bible with you like, these ones, for instance: Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria, "their women with child shall be ripped up," or 2 Kings 15:16 where God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah to be "ripped open." Or would you like to discuss Mark 7:9 where Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament Law (see also Matthew 15:4-7)? How about Luke 12:47? This is where Jesus okays the beating of slaves. The Bible is an interesting document. It is an anthropological curiosity. It was written by men.

One has to put what Darwin wrote within the context of his era. Though his theories concerning evolution have been proven to be pretty much on the money according to the body of research that has been performed throughout the following century and a half his personal reaction to "primitives" was born of his time and his culture. Though it would have been ace had the dude been culturally sensitive and politically correct I don't think we can fault him for not being a culturally hip anthropologist in addition to being all that he was. Social Darwinism is a separate issue, one that has ugly racist implications, and was not what Darwin was primarily on about when he was working out his theory of evolution. He was a 19th century Brit. Those guys weren't too comfortable around Frenchmen, Welshmen, Scots, the working class or Jews. It should be easy for you to picture his stupefaction when he encountered tribes who had little or no contact with what we will call civilization. To hi-jack his theory of evolution by screaming racism is specious.

Maybe these other folks who are in the pulpit are not spiritually blind and you are, Cusano. Who are you to say that you are right and these other pulpit riders are not closer to God and to spiritual health than you? You don't sound that well versed and certainly you are not a humble fellow, are you?

But who is to say that the Bible is right? Where is the objective evidence?

Aw shucks, tweren't nothing, and it came from my heart.:rose:

This is an illogical statement. Who is to say who are spiritually blind and who are not?

This is a specious argument; what you are saying is that if we believe in the same things that you do then we are right, otherwise we are wrong. You decorate this false logic by talking about open hearts and minds but this is just Cusano-speak for the issue of agreement or non-agreement. If you personally like the result then you can say that that individual has an open heart and mind. This is skewing the logic in your favour and that is illogical and just plain wrong. Though none of the atheists on this site are required to tell you what they do or don't believe in (for indeed why should they?) I will say that atheists do not believe in a God or in Gods. I would imagine that atheists who live in the Christian countries have a particularly difficult time with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic belief system for that is the one to which we have been exposed the most. This is because we see no tangible evidence to support a belief in a Supreme Being and even less to believe in the version supported by the Bible. As for this business of drooling at the mouth, well, that is just your fantasy, girl. Again, do your homework, read the threads on this site. You will certainly see that there has not been a dirty fight like this until you showed up on the scene. We have all been comfortably debating about other issues. As far as I know there is not an Atheist Jihad in the works. We are gentle, kindly folks who keep our opinions to ourselves except when we run across an arrogant and smarmy no-nothing putz like you, Cusano.

This is an empty statement. Please give examples.

Cusano, though it is unlikely that I will ever become a believer there are believers who regularly post on this site whom I admire for they wear their beliefs with knowledge and with grace. Lisah25 is one of them. Carlene is both an active Christian and someone who has enormous intellectual knowledge of the Scriptures and of church history. TOM is a Christian and an activist. There are of course many, many other fine and thoughtful Christians who post on this site. These are people who lead by example. You, however, have not shown yourself to be one of them as of this time of writing. You come across as smug and as a theocratic bully. You would do well to read over the threads here and to learn to respect and appreciate all the voices on this site. I don't believe that Christ espoused intellectual arrogance and, well, rigidity....so stop acting like a putz.

Oof, you are a sanctimonious fellow, aren't you? Who are you to say that atheists have no knowledge of the Bible? Many atheists become atheists after a close examination of the scriptures.

Au contraire, in general atheists are fact oriented individuals and it is this that makes it impossible to take the existence of God, particularly the Judeo-Christian-Islamo variant of God, on faith. It is the multiple internal contradictions present in your often somber and bloodthirsty Holy Book as well as the complete lack of verifiable signs of God that lead the fact-driven atheist away from belief. "Feelings," as you so dismissively describe the basis of our disbelief can more properly said to be the very thing which props up your belief. As for why you are under attack, Cusano, well here is the answer as per Green. If you have taken the trouble to carefully read the debates which we have in the Lapband fora you will note that our input comes from across the spectrum of beliefs, be they right wing or left wing, pro or anti Bush, and of course the members who are Christian have a wide variety of beliefs as to what properly constitutes a good and decent Christian. While various Christian beliefs have been challenged within the context of a specific discussion I don't really believe that Christians have, as a group, come under fire for their beliefs. Moreover, none of the Christians on this group have attacked those of us who are not Christian for our beliefs or lack of 'em. When you talk of something hitting home that would be the sharp sense of annoyance with individuals like yourself, smarmy individuals who talk down to us and who do not respect our intellects and the choices that we have made.

I agree. I think that Cusano was being totally disengenuous. Asking an individual who announces in her information block that she is an atheist whether she has examined her beliefs is both offensive and dumb. Of course she has! Why else would she put herself out there publically, eh? The issue of her beliefs should be a non-issue unless you are trying to troll for souls, something which drives atheists right around the twist. Cusano, you got what you asked for, the attention of a flock of angry atheists!

I would not only vote for him, if I were an American that is, I would even do a Lewinsky.:kiss2: That cat is not only smart and has good politics - he is also hot!

Holy shitcakes, that grrl looks like she's 55! And all her chest bones are sticking out! Ew....