Jump to content

Rue

Suspended
  • Posts

    12,191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    50

Everything posted by Rue

  1. It is a tough issue. Right now the Ont. gov. would have you believe that 94% of the sexual offenders in its province voluntarily sign up on the registry...I wonder however if this is not inflated. In any event here is the question. You have children. You want to buy a house. Should you have the right to access a registry to see how many registered sex offenders live where you are planning to move? How about you are the parent of a molested child or someone who has been the victim of a sexual assault. Do you not have the right to determine how many sex offenders are registered in your neighbourhood? All across the United States and Canada sexual offender registries have been set up. They are here to stay. Political pressure on politicians saw to that. So the question now really is not whether they should exist or not, but how they should be used..should the public have access to them or just the police.... Me personally I feel if someone has been convicted of a sex crime they should be registered and they have forfeited their right to expect privacy even once their sentence is up. This whole issue will become academic because I would think within the next 10 years the governments of the day will start micro-chipping people. Its just a matter of time.
  2. This is a forum to debate such issues. The notion that one can not say anything contrary to what George Bush says because its an internal domestic US matter is absolute b.s. I am not a Canadian MP voted to office or a diplomat. I am a citizen who has the right to free speech and I call them as I see them and will continue to do so, that is my absolute right.
  3. Well it really is quite simple. Canada underfunded its army since 1967 to the point of basically making it a joke. The 4th largest Navy at the end of WW 2 I believe to what now? And sure Canadians want to be the good guys and go off to Darfur but with what? It can barely handle its mission in Afghanistan which it just pledged another 2 years to. Why not Darfur? Look at the strategic position of Afghanistan vis a vis where the oil pipelines have to run. Now look at Darfur which is nowhere near the oil lines in Nigeria or Libya. End of story. No oil, no interest and so another genocide. With due respect though this is the UN that has miserably failed to send UN trops with a clear mandate to put down the Sudanese military and their allies and prevent them from entering refugee camps.
  4. All this talk about what to do with Alberta's surplus? That's easy. Send it my way so I can buy out the jokers in Toronto and fund a proper hockey team. While I am at it I would by the Habs my team as well. Seriously why not invest the money or at least some of it in alternative fuels such as solar energy, organic fuels, wind and so on?
  5. We went to Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban because it had provided a place for al-Qaeda to develop. Having succeeded in dislodging the Taliban regime, we haven't succeeded in ensuring it won't return to power. Hence, we can't exactly pack up and come home. --- Now then, your view of our activities abroad is interesting. Do you consider the money spent by CIDA and the activities it undertakes as "nothing more then a modern version of the Christian missionary off to Africa to save the savages from eating each other"? The U.S. went to Afghanistan allegedly in hot pursuit of Osama Ben Laden being protected by the Taliban. The Taliban and Al Queda are not the same. The Taliban or Mujadheen were created by the CIA to act as a movement to fight the Russians. The Taliban only became expendable or the enemy once they would not turn over Ben Laden. The Taliban did not develop nor did they organize nor did they have any affiliation with Ben Laden and in fact they didn't even like him. They reluctantly supported him since he was a brother Muslim. Now that Laden is not in Aghanistan what is the excuse for remaining? Well now we are told it is to keep the same Taliban who were allies against those darn Russian commies on the run. This by the way being the same Taliban that shut down the opium trade and as sexist and as barbaric as we may think it is, was at least not corupt. The puppet regime now in Afghanistan is not democratic. It is a council of drug war lords who in exchange for propping up the current puppet are allowed to grow poppies and dump their poison in the US, Canada and Europe. This is typical of American foreign policy - if you have to prop up a corupt leader who dumps drugs in your country, so be it. Noriega, Samosa are but two previous examples of drug lords who stayed in power as long as they were CIA stooges. So Canada now rushes in to do what? Hunt and kill Taliban not hunt and kill Osama Ben Laden. They are a proxy police force aand body guards for the government of the day and in that respect they are no different then any mercenary force or foreign force sent to kingdoms in the past to protect Kings or Queens. As for CIDA it wastes money and is a complete and utter joke. It wastes valuable money and basically is a vehicle for some guilt ridden white folk to feel good about themselves.You want an example of a true charity, try Unitarian Service Committee which is completely apolitical and teaches people how to be self-sufficient. CIDA is all about government grants going to Canadians who perport to helping third world types but waste the money on themselves. If I sound harsh on CIDA check it out for yourself. Its typical well intentioned misguided help.
  6. 1. I find Harper and Layton equally as dictatorial and think skinned with their caucus. 2. Harper is demonstrating someone who is an astute tactician but has one glaring weakness that will eventually get to him like it did Trudeau, Mulroney and Chretien and that is arrogance. He has a mean streak to him that belittles his intelligence. 3. Can't blame his latest tactics he hoisted the Liberals on their own petard. Now let's discuss the issue, should the troops stay. My concern from day one has always been that I consider the notion that you send troops to Afghanistan to help it develop democracy is by its very essence classic imperialist idiocy. It's nothing more then a modern version of the Christian missionary off to Africa to save the savages from eating each other. Right out of an old Johny Quest cartoon. Now I expect this kind of simplistic imperialist drivel from the U.S., because they really believe they are the best people in the world and everybody wants to be just like them but Canada? Has our inferiority complex and fear of not being liked by the Americans gotten so bad we are willing to simply send out troops into Afghanistan on some half assed mission? Our mandate is blithering and confused. What we have done is mix two completely different missions. One is fighting or preventing terrorism, the other is acting as supports and missionaries to assist a government develop democracy. They are two different things and yet most of our politicians have inter-mixed the two and so have bogged down our troops in a suicide mission that can only create negative future consequences. With due respect a conventional army can not prevent terrorism if anything it becomes a sitting duck for terrorists. Mao Tse Tung taught that, so did the Viet Cong and so many other guerilla and terrorist groups fighting conventional armies. To fight terrorism, one needs a small, quick, mobile team of specially skilled commandoes who move quickly and in secrecy. The Canadians have such an elite unit and that unit and its work to me is commendable but let's not confusethat work with sending our under-funded, ill-equipped conventional army to Afghanistan to do. Let's talk about our conventional army. The soldiers themselves are very well trained but have inferior equipment and most importantly have been given a ridiculous mandate. They are sitting ducks and the longer they stay, the more soldiers will be killed and the more likely they will develop specific psychological behaviour that will eventually have a serious effect on moral. What the US failed to learn in Vietnam and the Russians failed to learn in Afghanistan but the Israelis learned in the West Bank and in Gaza is you can not send in a conventional military force to hunt terrorists. At best it creates a tit for tat stalemate such as with the Tamil Tigers and the regular Sri Lankan Army or what happened in Ireland or Cyprus or with the intifada until Israel withdrew its conventional army and began engaging in pin point precision assassinations with car bombs and missiles. Just what is our army's mandate in Afghanistan? Is it to chase after Taliban and kill them or is it to convert savages to democracy? How can it do both? We are asking our soldiers to kill but then at the next moment have tea. That to me is absolute pure political b.s. Its tied our army's hands. Canadians think we can be all things to all people. Well we can't. This is not nice guy Canadiansbring Tim Horton's coffee and donuts to dirty little barefoot savages. These are men and women who have been asked to occupy a country and hunt down and kill Taliban on behalf of the current regime. Spin it any way you want but our Army is a proxy force propping up a regime. Is that what we want? Just what are we doing? Do any of you evenb know? Hmm, we started off with the Americans in hot pursuit of Osama Ben Laden and going into Afghanistan and bombing it to smithereens. Oopsy he got away. Then they invading Iraq allegedly going after weapons of mass destruction that never existed and ooopsy who should stay behind in Afghanistan so it can send its National Guard to Iraq...hmmmm..Australia and NATO countries like Canada and Holland. As for the Taliban who we feel supported Osama Ben Laden-aren't they the same people the CIA created to fight the Russian commies when they were in Afghanistan? Then again strange how politics works. Whether its Gamel Nasser, Mummar Ghaddafi, Sadaam Hussein, General Noriega, yes even OSama Ben Laden and the Taliban, isn't it funny how they start off as CIA friends and then become "rogue" and need to be punished? Sow hat do we Canadians do? Oh we sound all lefty touchy feel self righteous over Iraq but push comes to shove we went running into Afghanistan because of our massive inferiority complex and need to show the Yanks how tuff we are. So why did we go in? Funny how that one question gets missed in all this macho b.s. and posturing. Is it to hunt and kill Taliban or is it to stand around and have tea with savages and wash their undemocratic feet. Or do you believe you can kill at 9 a.m., and have tea at 5 p.m.? The party line is there is a democratic government that needs our help and by hunting down and killing Taliban and acting as sort of policemen in Afghanistan we are preventing terrorism and promoting doing democracy. Yah where have I heard that before? Hmm the crusade? Off to the Middle East we went to save the Christians from the savages. Off to South Africa we went. Off to South Korea, on and on. This is exactly the same b.s. that the Americans trotted out with their dominoe theory when they went into South Vietnam. Are we really fighting Hitler? Is this really comparable to world war two? The fact is the leader of Afghanistan is a CIA prop and who knows maybe one day he too will become a villan like every other CIA stooge.More to the point, he does not have the popular support of his population and can not venture outside the city of Kabul. Eventually he will be assassinated. The Afghanistan you and I refer to today is a 14 square mile radius around Kabul. The rest of the country is a large rock with peasants, most of whom are illiterate and depend on their religious leaders to tell them how to think. They have no currency, no economy, no electricity, no infrastructure and live day by day. You really think in this climate they can afford let alone have the physical ability to suddenly become free enterprise loving democrats? Yep I can just see the time shares going up. Sorry people, there is no oil, no lovely sandy beaches, no sun - just rock and mountain ranges that are inhospitable and impossible to police. Does anyone really think if you show a Maple Leaf in a small area of Afghanistan and offer people Tim Horton's coffee they will suddenly become democractic? They need food, water, electricity, infrastructure...coventional armies do not bring that. Social evolution over hundreds if not thousands of years brings that. Critical thought needs to evolve from fundamentalist thought and for that to happen people have to first conquer the basics, such as food, shelter, medicine and education, all things we take for granted in Canada. Afghanistan for the next few hundred years is destined to be ungovernable and undemocratic because its people are illiterate, choose to be fundamentalist Muslim and basically live in a poor, inhospitable country and in their own time need to evolve and make hard choices. Zooming around in some antiquated Bison vehicles won't change that. Now let's talk specifics. The people who prop up the current Afghanui regime aren't the Canadians or Americans, or democrats, they are in fact, murderous, tyranical, drug lords who have divided the country up and resurfaced since the Taliban were sent into the hills and no longer can police them. The cold tragic reality is that Canadian soldiers will now die so that these drug lords can cultivate poppies and make a fortune dumping opium in Europe and North America. We will have a new generation of drug addicts but hey I know, its for the good of democracy. Do I think we have a responsibility to be part of an international military force to combat terrorism-yes. Do I think placing Canadian soldiers in Afghhanistan with a vague mandate is the way to do that-no. I personally think if we want to go after terrorists then create mobile commando units and do just that and stop playing this self-righteous political game that we are there to save people. We aren;t. We are there to hunt, track down and kill Taliban. Either accept that fact or get off the pot. Trying to pretend are soldiers are supposed to be nice is for domestic consumption. The expectation that they sit around and drink Tim Horton's coffee and help old people across the street is to make us feel less guilty as to why they are really there - to hunt and kill. The notion of thinking our soldiers can drive around in patrols and say hello to the natives is b.s. This is not Cyprus. This is not peace keeping. This is war. Each time our soldiers step forth they are possible targets for ANY civilian. So how long until our good people in the armed forces in Afghanistan despise and hate the Afghanis? Will it take 10, 30, 50 more deaths? How long until we hear about our soldiers torturing someone? With due respect coventional armies must be given clear mandates with very definitive time lines. Otherwise they rot from within from poor morale caused by the psychological effects of protracted stress. Coventional armies are meant to fight other conventional armies. Not chase after civilians in the shadows. I respect our soldiers. I think they are brave and I commend what they are doing but I think we civilians have unrealistic expectations of them and it is now being reflected by our politicians including Mr. Harper who is trying too hard to convince people his pee pee isn't tiny. Yes I think we should contribute elite anti-terrorist units to specific anti-terrorist campaigns but no I do not agree with using our soldiers to fight at times, but at other times be passive policemen. This is not Cyprus, this is not Haiti. I think Nato feels Canada has been a lousy member and expect us to pull up our socks and take the lead but the fact is it should be the United Nations and not NATO in Afghanistan. There should be UN soldiers with a clear mandate in Afghanistan not just the Canadian Army with Aussies adn Dutch, etc. The Canadian army has by default taken over a mission that the UN and its spineless, gutless leaders have failed to respond to and that is what really pisses me off. That said I wish our troops well and respect what they are trying to do. Its our hipporcitical politicians I can not stand. Our troops I absolutely respect. If the Canadian Armed Forces can handle their current situation and support it, well then as much as I do not like it, I support them. But it doesn't mean gutless politicians can take credit for what they are doing.
  7. ---- rue, in your efforts to discredit the New Testament by pointing out errors in translation and so on, I think you are missing a broader point. The story of Christ as it is told today is an allegory. It is symbolic. That is precisely the point I was making. Please, make no mistake, I am not discrediting the New Testament. I am debating its true origins and whether we know its original or "true" meaning and whether anyone can call anything "gospel" when it is in fact second hand or in fact revised 3000 times.. It is precisely because I believe it is symbolic and meant to be taken as a series of allegories that I consider it subject to debate. I think your point would best be reserved for those who accept it verbatum as accurate, and to be taken literally as the truth and feel it can not be questioned. One last point some of you may find it amusing I question whether the New Testament is gospel so I should explain why. To a devout Christian of course the New Testament to them is gospel. My point is though the word "gospel" is used inter-changeably with the word "truth" and the word according to what Jesus taught. The arguement I am respectfully making is that to simply accept the Bible as truth or as the words of Jesus is as a result of you being taught to accept this unconditionally. When Tom Cruise repeats Scientology doctrine people are quick to raise their eye-brows or if a fundamentalist Muslim does it we recoil, but why is it if we question Christian fundamentals, it always seems to be portrayed as Satanistic or an attempt to discredit Christianity? I can say the same about any religion for that matter not just Christianity. The Da Vinci Code, whether you like it or not is causing "good Christians" to challenge and question and not simply repeat verbatum what has been told to them over and over again by their churches or leades. The fact that specific tales have been repeated for over 3000 years does not necessarily confer truth to those stories. While some people accept things as the truth after hearing it repeated over and over, I for one don't and that is why I challenge all religions equally the same way. I just would not feel comfortable from a purely intellectual perspective, accepting their doctrine verbatum. Today as I was driving to work I heard a representative of the Catholic Church responding to the Da Vinci Code on the radio by saying and I quote" The Catholic Church does not hide things, its not secret, it has never kept anything secret and never will..". Its comments like that, which people know just doesn't make sense given what we know of the Church's structure and its many inner layers....even the way it picks its Pope, that make people deep down inside want to question the Church. This book has struck a repressed desire to think freely that many people have stifled for years as a result of their blind obedience to a particular way of thinking. I also think with due respect, the gospel according to Mel Gibson last year in his movie was bound to set the stafe for a movie such as this one. To simply present the story of Jesus in such simplistic and brutal terms no longer works. The Church may have been able to control billions over the years with that kind of thought but the reality is today the Church and all organized religions are in decline precisely because in the age of instant news and inter-net telling people myths and tales just does not resonate any longer.
  8. Experience. You make a valid point but my point is what you consider to be valid experience could be in fact bad habits or prejudices you have developed. Not all experience reflects wisdom. Sometimes we adults get so set in our ways, we miss the point that we may have become negative or self-destructive and are now trying to impose that on the next generation. As for the refrain that the next generation has had it easy that is absolute bull. Each generation has its own challenges and problems to deal with. Our next generation has a polluted dying planet, global terrorism, unemployment and pandemics to face. To say they have it easier is dumb and dumber. Every generation has its struggles. I think the major challenge for the one after us and the one after that if there is one, is in dealing with the polluted planet. We adults tend to think in the present tense and forget what we are leaving behind. As for STD's existing in every generation that is a valid point and they too eventually killed when left untreated but I think the probable difference today is that kids are being pressured into having sex in a different manner then in the past. There was a time when children were allowed to be considered hands off. One only need look at an old Shirley Temple movie or the Wizard of Oz to understand that. Today Judy Garland would probably be wearing a cut off t-shirt, have nipple piercings and be having group sex with the Munchkins, Tin Man, Scarecrow and Lion if not a lesbian affair with Glinda. As for Batman and Robin, think about it.
  9. Let's clear up some myths and misunderstanding repeated by some posters in response to my earlier post. The Dead Sea Scrolls ar ein fact older than any other surviving Biblical manuscripts by almost one thousand years. Carbon testing has them pegged at being written some time in the third century BCE to 68 CE. The Dead Sea Scrolls have been on display, I myself some them in Ottawa, and they contain glaring inconsistencies with what is later represented as gospels in the New Testament. As for Constantine, historians estimate he was born on or about February 27, 272 and died on or about May 22, 337, if we use today's calendar which is of course by no means accurate. Constantine, the Emperor of Rome would have been a follower of polytheism. It was said during the Battle of Milvian Bridge on October 28, 312, he had a vision. He supposedly saw an ambigram cross and wording to the effect he would be victorious and this started his interest in Christianity. The reality was however, he was ruling over a kingdom divided by Sun worshippers (pagans) and fledging Christians and as most politicians do, he needed to find a way to control to potentially feuding factions so he had to come up with a faith based system that could unify them. During his day Christianity would not ressemble what it is today. For starters it was bitterly divide between Arianism and Quartodecimanism. In fact the only thing it seemed to agree on at that point which would be echoed by Constantine was the belief that Jews were responsible for the murder of Jesus. Constantine was only baptized on his death and through most historical reports (Lacantius, Eusebus) he was a pagan who used Christianity as a political tool to rule. Certainly his beliefs and the symbols he left behind in coins and seals indicate his worship of the Sun God and nature. Now lets talk about these alleged Gospels that one poster thinks is funny to even question. If one looks at Mathew, Luke, Mark and John two things are obvious. Firstly they are not written by these people. They are in fact manuscripts written by ghost writers commissioned to re-write what they allegedly said. There are rampant contradictions with these alleged gospels which Christians rely on as the basis to believe Jesus was divine, etc. The gospels of Mathew and Luke disagree as to when Jesus was born and where he lived. Even the story of the crucifixion in these 4 gospels is not uniform. What we also know is that Jesus' famous last words " why hast thou forsaken me" is mistranslated from Hebrew's original meaning, " My God, My God, how thou dost glorify me". This is but one of thousands of examples of how things were mistranslated as the gospels were re-written. Let's get even more specific. The gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John were all considered heretical at one point. They probably were drafted somewhere between 70 an 140 CE but then subject to re-writes in over 3,000 different manuscripts. The first person to even mention these 4 gospels as being the source to determine Jesus' alleged origins and stories is Irenaeus about 180 CE. In fact Paul's "gospel" was drafted around 50 CE long before these 4 gospels and interesting with Paul's gospel, he does not mention meeting Christ in person. All his references to Christ are spiritual. In fact there is no historical evidence that Jesus existed. That is what many struggle with to this day to deal with. If you are a Christian you simply accept the 4 gospels. If you are a historian trying to remain neutral and objective and keep your subjective beliefs out of it, there is no historical evidence. Since these gospels are written after the fact, they are full of inaccuracies and inconsistencies and at best we can only guess when Jesus was born, where he lived and what he did. Accepting literally what ghost writers commissioned by the Catholic Church to write about him hundreds if years after his death may be an article of faith for Christians but is defective if you are a historian trying to get first hand evidence and not heresay to establish facts. The fact is the Bible is not a history of actual events. It is in fact the evolutionary writings of commissioned ghost writers reflecting the development of Christian mythology over the ages as spear-headed by the Church. In that regard it evolved no differently then say the Old Testament where it too was written and rewritten and subject to countless edits by alleged scholars representing the religion. The Bible is in fact an exercise in submitting writings which then had to be edited and approved and they were edited and approved according to the political agenda of the learned ones (Old Testament) or Church (new testament). So about this Christian religion and its beliefs and tales of Jesus. Are they original? Hardly. The poster who wrote paganism borrowed their ideas from Christianity is laughable. Paganism pre-existed Christianity by thousands of year. The concept of a son born from God in a cave and performing miracles and sent to earth to save humanity is far from originals. Christians believe it is unique to them but the fact is it is a recycled story. Egypt has Osiris, Greece, Dionysus, Asia Minor, Attis, Italy, Bacchus, Persia, Mithras, all sons of God born in caves to virgin mothers and destined to perform miracles and save people. In fact now many Christians argue, o.k., so other people had these same beliefs before we did, but they were all inspired by us. They were precursors to the real truth, the Christian story. The fact is, humans even before the above Pagan mythology had been making stories up about a son from God. To pretend the Church did not take the story of Osiris/Dionysus/Atis/Mithras and rewrite it to suit their religion is just not helpful if we are going to be honest and look to the origins of why Christians celebrate their Mass on SUN day or celebrate Christ's birthday on December 25 and so many of the other stories that seem to repeat verbatum what Dionysus or Osiris or Mithras did. To truly understand the origins of Christianity one must go back to at least Zoreastrianism as a start. You will also note Islam also depends heavily on a figure similiar to Jesus. So that is the point. The point is not that the Da Vinci code is a fiction - the point is the historical debate as to the origins of Jesus, the origins of Christian mythology and symbols, the concept of the trinity and divinity, the use of the cross, and on and on, have been a constant source of questioning among many scholars for centuries. As much as some of you would like to write off this book as fiction (which it is) the debate as to the origins of Christianity however, that it touches on, are not fiction and the questioning of whether Jesus actually existed, married, had children, etc., are the subject of great debate. If you are brought up being told a certain version of "truth" all your life, of course anything challenging that will seem "fictitious". What I am boldly stating is this - even if Jesus was just a human, and much if not all of the religion is myth and plagerized, so what? It changes nothing. The preachings of respecting one's fellow human remain valid. Being peaceful and tolerant and loving are still ideals we should uphold. The views I mention above by the way are not the views of a Satan worshipper or an anti-Christian. In fact much of the dialogue I have in my own simplistic way tried to raise (because I am not a theologian and am the first to concede am an idiot anyways) was mentioned to me by Jesuits, Anglicans, and other Christians as well, struggling to ask themselves could and can Christianity exist if Jesus is but a mortal. It sounds ridiculous but is it? To them it is not. All that aside, I say it again, if Christians find the concept of Jesus being divine an article of faith, I respect those beliefs and views and would never put them down and deeply respect them. I am simply presenting the other side of the debate.
  10. A lot of people who thinks the way you do actually needs a human figure to make it through the rough edges of life: they rely on their therapist, or psychoanalyst, etc.., Excellent point and precisely for that reason although I debate this topic with great zeal do not mistake the fact that I deeply respect any Christian's right to believe Jesus is divine and worship God through Jesus just as I would a patient's need to use a therapist or the average every day human's need to have heroes. In my line of thought, I would question all religions equally in the sense that I question whether most if not all of what religion is- is an exercise of comfort - it allows us to suspend having to be logical when trying to cope with that which seems beyond our understanding.
  11. The question for me is whether it is appropriate that someone charged with keeping you alive is also the one charged with managing your death. I think there's a conflict of interest there. But I'm not really sure how that conflict might be overcome. Perhaps the creation of a new specialty that deals strictly with euthanasia, maybe even their own legislation outside of the current healthcare legislation. You make excellent points that go to the very pith and substance of the issue.
  12. Since George Bush can not speak English what was his point in the first place? What has happened in the last few weeks is pathetic. Bush has gone on an anti-Mexican/Latino crusade to appease the same Evangelical nut bars that put him in office. This is nothing more then a cheap shot at Latinos. Its thinly veiled intolerance. You go George. Send your already over stretched National Guard to the Mexican border "temporarily". What a joke. The fact is these same Spanish speaking people that this is a slap to, say the 12 million illegals from Mexico and Latin America...they are the same people working in jobs fat, lazy, "educated" Americans no longer want. America has been built by the cheap labour and soldiers it has drawn in from other countries. So excuse me its not as simple as simply saying speak English. That is no different then telling someone to shaddup and be tolerant my favourite expression. You don't want these people speaking Spanish, its simple, don't dominate their economies and keeping their markets captive and uncompetitive forcing their people to come to the US to work. Yah I love you rednecks in Canada that feel the same way about French. OOh the nerve of it all having to sing Oh Canada partly in French. So don't. Remain myopic and afraid of anything that doesn't sound or smell the same as you. Be my guest. Me I love Europeans who can speak 3,4 languages. I am envious of them I can only speak 2.
  13. I have no problem in someome postulating that the thing behind everything transcends any definition humans care to spin. That said when atheists advise me that the idea of a thing behind everything is a man made concept designed to fill a void of not knowing, I would say yah that is also stating the obvious but the point? Even believing their is nothing, is faith of some sort. So I approach religious arguements treating all belief systems the same-as being subject to debate and speculation. My only problem is when humans feel their religion is the right one and everyone else is wrong. It then tends to lead to wars and persecution and I find that pitiful.
  14. They have no standard, and lack moral for themselves, the teens need to concentrate on school and exercise their brain "They". Talk about generalizing. What is it every generation that ages thinks it can put down the one after it. What suddenly happens in adulthood that makes someone feel they can lecture younger people about exercising their brain when we as adults destroy this planet with war, economic injustice and pollution? The fact is the next generation are exposed to hundreds of thousands of ads from adults deliberately using sex to teach them that everything in life is expendable. If things are expendable they get thrown out and then new products are bought and the world of materialism can continue. Instead of lecturing children or young adults about using their brain how about you use yours to remember what it was like to be young and faced with conflict. Imagine what it would be like to be young today being constantly sold everything with sex. Imagine the pressure at 9 to look sexy and not be fat. I doubt however it would even dawn on you the pressure these kids feel. As for sex with young kids the post missed the point. If children can't remain virgins its not because they are liars or failures or to weak, its because of a sexual climate being shoved down their faces. Start with the concept that oral sex is safe. During the last 10 years, young girls have been forced to engage in oral sex with young men because it is widely believed this is safer sex. Next up is the most obvious of obvious points - where the f...ck are the parents? I tell you where they are - they are at work leaving their children alone and unsupervised. How many adults are out working or worse still, out getting drunk or stoned leaving their children unsupervised. How many young children turn to sex because they are not supervised and feel unloved? Where are the parents when their children go to school? Do they bother to take them any more? Do parents bother to sit down with children and talk anymore? Do adults have the time to sit and talk with children and encourage them to believe their self-esteem does not depend on being sexually desireable? Why do I think the same adults who lecture young people on using their brains are the same people that would never admit they enjoy seeing Lindsay Lohan in a t-shirt. Give it a rest and lets support young people not put them down. Lets tell them they have options other then sex and take an active role in taking pressure off of them instead of acting high almighty.
  15. The bottom line is abortion is a political issue. You can quote all the cases you want from what-ever jurisdiction you want, but what it comes down to is the politics of morality and whether we want individuals deciding this issue within the private and confidential relationship between patient and doctor, or whether we want the state to impose a collective standard. I myself believe the decision was to whether to abort or carry a child to full gestation must remain a decision between the mother, doctor and father. I also believe ultimately as long as the fetus is in a woman's womb, it comes down to an issue as to how that woman controls her body. I think the right wing zealouts who see anything in the womb as life are no better then the misguided who use abortion as birth control. Does it suprise me? Of course not. Judaism, Christianity and Islam all portray women as subordinate to men and devalue the worth of the womb and the creation of life within the womb. Women are portrayed as vessels simply performing a function for the good of men. In my opinion the orthodox wings of these religions preach that women are inferior and in fact a creation from evil. Sex has always been portrayed as a weakness. If the life force that comes through the beauty of sex is portrayed as dirty and something to be repressed is it any wonder coventional orthodox religion can not deal with the fact that a woman's body is not the property of the Church or the man who impregnated it? Then again I am probably talking to people who feel sperm is divine and babies are born by divine inspiration when I talk to people who feel abortion is something that is evil so what can I expect. Ideally we want people having children because they choose do to so with the exercise of pure love and free will. In reality people carry children with horrid deformities or as the result of rape or forced incest. In reality sometimes a choice has to be made between the life of the mother or her child. In reality no one knows when life begins in a fetus no one can say when a cell after it divides is a life. To me anti-abortionists want to impose their views on everyone. On the other extreme I also think there may be some who have lost sight of the purpose of why we have sex as well. Either way I say, its a woman's individual decision what and how she governs her body and its her consequence to suffer if she makes the wrong decision not yours or mine.
  16. One last thing. Christians like to argue that since Jews referred to a Messiah coming it somehow proves Christ was divine and the Messiah. The fact is there were always 3 streams of thought; i-those who believed the Messiah already came, ii-those who believed he will come, and then iii-after his death, those who believe Jesus was the Messiah. All the literature that suggests people believed Jesus was the Messiah, while he was alive is written hundreds and thousands of years after his death by writers commissioned by the Catholic Church. In fact there is strong arguement to be made that the sermons Jesus actually preached have been rewritten to suit the Jesus is Messiah theory. Revising what people said after the fact to suit a theory is typical human nature. I personally believe Jesus may have stated he was A son of God not THE ONE AND ONLY son of God and that Christian writers after the fact have twisted what he said to suit their dogma. Jesus's attempt to personify God through the analogy that he or you or I are children of God would be compatible with holistic beliefs he would have picked up in India suggesting all life is inter-connected and it would also be consistent with certain mystical Jewish traditions. Spin it all you want the fact that Jews believe a Messiah is still to come means nothing to the debate. It proves nothing. In fact many scholars now say the concept "Messiah" or "Saviour" is not Jesus or a particular human being or an angel, but the potential in each and every human to do positive things and make the planet a better place. For that matter many ultra-Orthodox Jews used to believe Menachem Schneerson was the Messiah but he is now dead so they are in a state of active revision. I make no apology stating in my opinion the Messiah, Divinity, Gospel, are all man written, man created concepts as to what they think God is and what they think Jesus is. Its subjective beliefs with no basis other that personal belief. Excuse me if I treat ALL religions consistently the same and do not consider Christianity special and the one true version to follow. Excuse me if I find it audacious that Christians believe Jesus was the only son of God and had a monopoly on showing people how to evolve and grow spiritually. Excuse me if I believe the central principle of Christianity, divinity is defective, flawed, illogical, elitist, closed-minded and in fact is nothing more then an attempt to personify an abstract concept that would otherwise scare people. I myself do not need the flesh of a human figure to make it easier to understand God. I would understand however why others would and I respect their beliefs and their right to believe in them but I will debate them vigorously. There are other ways to approach the topic of existence - there is no one way to understand existence.
  17. Interesting how modern Christians try revise History to suit their arguements. I think the Dead Sea Scrolls are a lot older then 2000 years and in fact do contain many discrepancies with the NEW Testament. The "theory" about Constantine is not "theory" but something most historians have been able to document and in fact the incorporation of Pagan ideology and symbols by Constantine is not only blatant but highly obvious. You can continue pretending Pagan beliefs and ideologies were not adopted by Constantine but you are out of touch with what most historians now accept. As for the New Testament being gospel, I appreciate you Christians want to accept it verbatum as the word of God and do not consider it capable of being challenged because that is what your Church has taught or conditioned you to believe but with due respect to many we do not accept the Bible verbatum as having been written by any of the disciples precisely because it is a fact the Church commissioned hundreds of ghost writers to re-write the Bible. Of course I can understand why certain Christians would feel threatened if the Bible is in fact just a book written by men and that Jesus may not have been born from divine sperm but everyday human variety sperm. I can see why you will go out of your way to deny history, deny Constantine's role, ignore the blaring contradictions in the Dead Sea Scrolls and thousands of other pieces of literature-I appreciate all that. The point is it just may be there is another opinion other then your standard knee jerk Jesus is divine and he was not married one. Also to ignore all the Pagan symbols and the fact that Christianity promulgates a version of creation that gives no credence to women and nature and attempts to portray the sexual act as evil is something I am quite happy to distance myself from. As for the Da Vinci code being proven to be fiction, the author stated from day one it was fiction. The theories of Jesus not being divine however have been around since the Christian religion aberated into what it is today. Its not a Zionist conspiracy either. Many progressive Christian scholars have researched and speculated as to the role the Catholic Church has played in creating and promulgating a religion that may be based on fiction. Some people see miracles and articles of unquestioned faith, others see man made stories created for political reasons.
  18. Point is that he wans't normal. Your response misses the point. You are projecting your own belief system as to what is normal or not normal on to the situation thousands of years later to rationalize the theory that an ordained rabbia and practicing Jew would not have been married.
  19. Constantine ordered the Bible re-written to win over the Romans of his day. He had a political problem and to control the majority of Pagans he needed to use a belief system they could identify with. So the Church commissioned writers to re-write passages incorporating Pagan concepts such as the day of worship being SUN day and Christ's birth being celebrated on a Pagan holiday. The whole concept of Jesus being the son of God is far from original. It was plagerized directly from Dionysus, and the Egyptian Sun God religions and other similiar religions. The Bible whether its the new testament or old testament is the result of ghost writers submitting passages which were then reviewed and edited and screened before being placed in the Bible. It was a massive political exercise to put in the Bible a belief system the Church and Constantine could use to control people. One only need look at the Dead Sea Scrolls to see how far off the Bible went from the original early Christian beliefs. Let's be realistic. Jesus was a Rabbia. Like any Jew or Rabbia he would have gotten married. Marriage was an absolute obligation and nothing absolutely nothing indicates Jesus ignored Jewish traditions and beliefs. he may have challenged coruption and power cliques but he did not question basic Jewish beliefs. Most of the passages depicting Jesus as having said he was divine and the son of God were written long after the fact using the Pagan concept of the son of God. Of course Jesus would have married. It also is highly likely he travelled to India and the East where he learned medicine and was exposed to Taoist, Hinduist and Buddist believes. Yes Christians believe as a matter of faith Christ is divine and if he wasn't? No big deal. It doesn't change much. I personally believe the divinity piece is a minor, insignifigant piece blown completely out of perportion by the Church as a way to consecrate power over its believers. Will it ruin Christianity? No. Many modern Christians have been asking the questions and formulating the answers for a Christian religion with a mortal Jesus. It may scare some and probably Mel Gibson but I see it as a mere burp in history along the development of humankind.
  20. I just dissed Albertans in another post so I am in no position to say don't generalize when I made several generalizations (albeit tonque in cheek). But to be serious, I think it is unfair to Spud Islanders to depict them as lazy and not wanting to work. I think the story here is a bit more complicated then them not wanting to work. The Spud Islanders I know are not sitting around collecting welfare because they have to. If there is a problem finding workers, it is not because they are lazy but because they have to go elsewhere in Canada for work. More to the point, Spud Island is under-going the same demographic changes as much of the rest of Canada. As its population ages, its next generation are going to university and looking for computer and professional jobs. The only thing I will say is that I personally feel McCain and Irving have turned all of Atlantic Canada into a captive economy for their financial empires and have choked off any free enterprise or genuine market competition. Even if a Spud Islander or Atlantic Canadian wanted to try make a go of it, they have to deal with the reality of a limited market place and limited jobs. I am sure Atlantic Canadians and Spud Islanders will speak for themselves and answer this one better then me. By the way to understand Spud Island is to appreciate what kind of juice they can make out of their potatoes. I drank some once. It came out of a tube and a plastic bucket. Sort of looked like dirty water. Makes your car angine purr. You drink this stuff and you suddenly can't breath and you go blind but man it has a kick. You drink that stuff you can do anything. So careful. You do not want to rile a Spud Islander. All kidding aside, they are honest hard working people.
  21. They both are boring. No offense but if you want a nice city try Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal, Quebec City or Saint John's. They are all unique. Calgary is a wannabee Tulsa, Oklahoma. Yah them Calgarians will track me down and kill me but the fact is it is a US wannabee town. It tries to be Tulsa or Dallas. As for Edmonton, it is a typical civil service city. Boring. Clean. Edmonton has a huge mall and that is about it. The only thing Calgary is good for is the fact that its fans are the best football and hockey fans you will find. Well Edmonton's too. Both cities people are good winter drivers. Albertans in general like to eat red meat and try sound American when they speak. Now you want a real accent go to Saint John's. I apologize to all Westerners but now Haper is PM you get to be razzed. (this is a tonque in cheek response please do not send Westerners to Eastern Canada looking beat up another Uppity Canadian...)
  22. Uh Hello this is Mexico NOT CANADA!! Stop thinking Mexico is Canada. The fact is the police in Mexico are corupt. The fact is they can arrest you for no reason and demand a bribe to let you go. Please his idea that Mexican police will be freed up to go after deals is a joke. The Mexican police are corupt from the bottom up and deeply involved with drug dealing and the biggest pushers in Mexico. The reason this law was passed is precisely because of the corupt drug pushing criminals that control the government. Mexico loves its drug addled tourists. Anything to make its tourists happy. This is nothing but a cheap, crass, opportunistic move to attract a kind of tourist that would otherwise hang out in Thailand. Now that there is world terrorism, floods, and tidal waves, these druggie tourists want to stay closer to home. Why go all the way to Thailand when you can simply go next door. Excuse me but heroin is not some recreational joke. Heroin and cocaine are part of a trillion dollar international network of crime. Hey you know what, I can't stand Mexico anyways. It can cater to all the junkies it wants. They won't catch me paying a penny to go back there. Mexico is corupt. Its government is corupt. Its police are corupt killers. I feel sorry for its citizens. As for Canadians, I would think twice going their on vacation. If you don't get hepititis fromt he ice cubes you can now share the beaches with junkies and if you are lucky step on a needle. Oh joy.
  23. This of course is a very important development because it certainly would be used as a legal reference in our courts and parliament for a similiar debate. I think one of the problems we face in society is that still many of us fear death, so much so that we are willing to let people suffer rather then deal with the concept of death. To me this is a no brainer. If someone is terminal and is riddled with pain, when and how they die is a private matter between them, their families and of course their treating physician. All this law was trying to do is recognize what in fact happens every day in reality, doctors who assist patients die when there is no hope and pain is the only option. The fact is our laws have to become clearer on what we can and can not do in the final days. Our population is aging and we have a major baby boomer bulge who will all grow old at the same time and strain our hospital facilities. With the advanced technologies we now have, more and more people are going to survive but be faced with a vegetative state or be faced with lingering in pain. Blindly holding to the concept that life counts at all costs reflects a spiritual value that is afraid of death. Death to me is but a transition and is as natural as life itself. If someone on an individual level fears being dead and dying, so be it. Make that decision on an individual level to keep living when you are in pain. Do not sign a do not resucitate order. Don't make a living will. Better still make one that says -leave me alive at all costs. But as for me, I do not want a doctor feeling he has to look blindly the other way while I choke in my vomit and fluids from failing lungs as I lie riddled with pain. I will summarize this issue susinctly. I had a friend die of a form of very aggressive painful cancer. Luckily he was sent home with a morphine drip and died in his home without too much pain. He had a morphine drip that eased the pain and he died with dignity and without too much suffering. This happened in Toronto. So with its over-worked doctors and clogged medical system it worked. Somebody built compassion into the medical system and it worked for him. All I am saying is the thousands of people suffering each day from cancer, aids or other diseases that are killing them should be able to die with dignity. No I am not condoning murdering the disabled or questioning the Catholic Church of people's religious beliefs etc. All I am saying is our existing criminal laws as to assisted suicide are antiquated and ridiculous. This should not even be a criminal or legal issue. This should be a decision each one of us makes as an individual. As for me I do not fear death, I do fear being forced to live as a vegetable or in a state of pain hooked up to millions of wires and pipes unable to scream but feeling every inch of pain all over my body. And if you think that makes me a coward I really don't care. To me its an issue as to quality of life not quantity. Life is precious for me. I do not believe it was intended to be imposed on us according to the views of those who are afraid of being dead.
  24. www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm This is a desperate attempt at mud-slinging to impress Liberals that he will be Anti-American. Its a cheap attempt to get votes and portray himself as a strong leader. In fact all it does is expose him as a crass idiot. The analogy was completely inappropriate and as far as I am concerned he is a joke anyways. He was a disaster as a Premier and he would be a diaster as a federal party leader. At best he belongs in the back benches popping anti-depressants and whining about day care.
  25. She's entitled to her opinions. She won't be the first or last anti-war activist looking for an audience to preach to. The fact is Harper flipped and flopped on Iraq. He appears to be pro-American and a Republican wannabee but I also think he appreciates getting too caught up supporting Iraq would be disasterous so he will play it cool on Iraq and let the Americans fall apart there on their own. I think what we Canadians should be asking is quite simply what do we want our Armed Forces doing? Do we want them in Afghanistan? Do we want them in Darfur? Iraq has proven a disaster. Afghanistan could prove to be another Cyprus, i.e., a lengthy, costly attempt at showing what wonderful people we are.
×
×
  • Create New...