gullyfourmyle

Having a soul has nothing to do with an after life. Your soul is what makes you, you. If you have no soul, you're a zombie. That's why Dementia and Alzheimers are so scary - it's the zombie syndrome striking really close to home. Once you've had to interact with a person in that condition, you come away with a better appreciation for your ability to be yourself. It takes about eight years to become worm food after first diagnosis assuming you don't succumb to some other underlying condition, assuming you don't become air pollution first.

So here we were talking or about to talk about a God entity and the entire thread disintegrated into drivel. What happened to the moderator who is supposed to keep threads on topic? I published The God Thing a couple of times before (I forgot about that before I posted it). It was against this forum's rules so they sent me a heads up on it. The first time I published it was on a site in the UK. That site is just for ordinary everyday people with no special legislative skills or religious bent. There were some pretty good discussions as a result. I published it again on my own website after the UK one was hacked. My site was hacked too so nothing of any consequence happened there and I had no idea how to attract an audience that could speak intelligently about what I'd written. Most just read it and moved on. It wasn't thought provoking enough or maybe people just didn't know how to answer it. On this site, I thought there would be sufficient mental ammunition to generate some colourful dialogue. Instead the reverse is true. The babble so far is juvenile. There are lots of holes to be picked in The God Thing and lots of different view points to explore. Are you people saying this is the best you can do? Can't you keep from taking potshots at each other and stay on course? How can any of you purport to be able to contribute anything meaningful to political or any other form of debate when you can't even post a simple response without going out of your way to insult someone? The degeneration of this thread is a micro analogy of how small differences of opinion grow into disputes and disputes escalate to fights, civil strife and wars. If you disagree with someone, fine. Make your point. You don't have to get personal. And when you do, you might take into consideration that at some point you might meet that person face to face and have to eat mutual crow. If someone makes a wrong statement or you have information that's contradictory you don't have to rub the other person's nose in it. You might need their help some day. Stranger things have happened.

It is a fundamental belief that all human beings have a soul. What most people don’t stop to think about is that souls aren’t limited to humans. Every animal, plant and microbe has a “soul” so some degree. Indeed if this were not so, then we’d have a planet populated entirely by zombie-creatures given that every living thing is an amalgamation of cells with an intent to continue life to the last possible moment. We call it survival instinct. If each and every cell didn’t have this need to survive, cutting off the limbs of animals or trees for instance wouldn’t be an issue. Instead that sort of threat sends the entire organism into a paroxysm of dread right down to the cellular level. Your brain in isolation does not govern this reaction. Your entire organism wants to survive with all its members intact. This is evident when the head is cut off a chicken. When I was eleven, I saw a chicken beheaded for the first time on a farm. The chicken escaped and flew onto the barn roof and perched there for what seemed a long time until if finally keeled over. How did it fly? How did it know to land in the middle of the ridge on top of the barn as though it had eyes? We know chickens have their brains in their heads. Cockroaches live without heads until they starve. It stands to reason therefore, that your soul is an aggregate entity made up of billions of tiny intents which in cohesion can form values, needs and drives. Again every living thing on the planet operates on the same basic principals. The soul therefore is a community identity not limited to humans. I wrote the preceding prose on March 23, 2003. It was reported in the Toronto Star on May 15 2004 that Nobel Laureate, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA followed that discovery up with an even more exciting discovery – to me at least – he discovered the cells in the human brain responsible for creating an individual’s unique sense of self. The location of the soul in other words – command center for the community of cells of which each of us is composed. “For the first time we have a coherent scheme for the neural correlates of consciousness in philosophical, psychological and neural terms. “Actual consciousness may be expressed by only a small set of neurons, in particular those that project from the back of the cortex to parts of the frontal cortex.” The implications for religion are huge. But in the case of aboriginal belief systems, their approach seems to have been correct all along. It appears there is no reason for denying that plants and animals within the context of their physiology and the eco-systems they live within, have a soul too. It’s well known that higher animals understand language – even our language, emotions such as humour, anger and love. Cats only meow at people, not at each other. Insects understand the language of other insects. The definition between what is human and what is animal is getting very narrow. Intelligence is no criteria. Just because an animal cannot make a living on our terms becomes meaningless when you consider how formidable it would be for a human to try and do the same as any other sort of animal. Then when you look at the actual material we are composed of, it turns out we are all made of the same stuff assembled using different instruction sheets. Like a Mechano or a Lego set for instance. Given enough parts you can build just about anything. So understanding (in simple form) how a soul lives within you and other entities on the planet and also understanding how we are all interconnected electrically, it follows that shortly after you die, your soul does leave your body. It does not necessarily vaporize as if it never were. It is likely absorbed into the vast electronic plasma we referred to earlier as God (in the God Thing).Possibly, to a degree, what separates our souls and continues its viability for a time, is passion. Every living thing is also capable of expressing passion to some degree or nothing would ever procreate. Humans are capable of projecting passion by various means, well beyond our physical presence. Possibly the degree to which we can project accounts for the belief in ghosts or spirits and the ability some people to be sensitive to their presence while others remain insensitive. If then the soul leaves the body at death and joins the ephemeral plasma of the God essence, you can be said to have entered heaven. The thing is, the essence of everything that dies goes there too, not just humans and not just the “good”. All evolve, reform and become part of God. There lies the explanation of how man can be made in the image of God. In those terms, its easy to see that everything living and that ever has lived is made in the image of and is part of God. How could it be any other way? That makes for a pretty powerful entity does it not? It also makes for a pretty powerful entity on some obvious levels. It explains why when you pray for God’s intervention, you don’t get a set of written instructions telling you what to do. The truth is, God has no more of an idea what you should do than you do and for the most part could care less. You see, the God state just is. Godhood is not a state within which exists good or evil. It is a state that is based on the natural flow of life into death from generation to generation with modifications along the way to compensate for changing physical necessities. Beyond that, God has no time table and no requirement to perpetuate your soul as a coherent entity. Eventually life on earth will be extinguished. Our spirits will not survive that termination unless we have managed to migrate to another solar system capable of supporting our narrow requirements. If that happens we won’t be packing ghosts or spirits. In our absence how ever that is caused, they will cease to exist. People in the nuclear and oil industries are trying assiduously to hasten the planet’s demise. It is well known that certain aboriginal tribes and doubtless our own distant ancestors practiced cannibalism. They ate all or part of the bodies of their dead foes. This was not done as an act of revenge but rather as an act of respect and admiration and a desire to add the positive qualities of the deceased to their own. On some levels this worked. Just not exactly the way they hoped. They did receive life essence from their defeated victims in normal food value. They would not receive more than that unless they ate the parts raw. (which was surely done at times,. At that time the possibility of the transfer of cellular memory was remotely possible. But it was an idea that was in truth way ahead of its time. But lately with the advent of organ transplants doctors and researchers are beginning to document the evidence of cellular memories in the recipients of organ transplants that clearly were not the recipient’s own memories. These memories extend to the ability to speak and understand foreign languages. These findings support the idea of a transference of life force in very compelling terms. Leslie A. Takeuchi, BA, PTA said of his clinical research “What was most striking were the numerous reports of organ transplant recipients who later experienced changes in personality traits, tastes for food, music, activities and even sexual preference.” (Cellular Memory in Organ Transplants) Another of cannibalism and indeed the fundamental attitudes of aboriginal peoples towards their food that’s significant was their respect for the souls of the food they ate. It’s well known that the Plains Indians “worshipped” buffaloes which were their principle sources of food, shelter and clothing. More likely rather than worship, a better way of putting it would be that the Plains peoples held the buffalo in high esteem and had a monumental respect for their worth not only as a source of commodities but also as another being with an important role to play in the cycle of life. Buffaloes were the centre of the plains people’s lives. Every kill was utilized completely. Nothing was wasted. Every kill was given respect and honour. When Europeans arrived, the buffalo were eventually slaughtered from train windows as target practice. The carcasses were left to rot where they fell in an ultimate show of indifference to not only the animals but to an entire way of life of which they knew little and cared less. Modern societies would do well to emulate the intent of aboriginal spiritual practice because in essence it works. When grace is said at the table before a meal is served (something that is done less and less these days), we are thanking “God” for that which was put in front of us. Instead we should be thanking the souls of the entities, parts of whose bodies we are about to eat. Learning respect for the soul of the animal and understanding how it gave up its life and the manner in which that life was given has an effect on what you eat, how much you eat and how much of that food is wasted. Eating as much of the food raw is best for the transfer of life energy from the food to the new host – ourselves. What is transferred are the electrical energy or enzymes or the life force of the tissue. As raw, fresh food, the food is alive, not dead and already beginning to rot. Despite the fact that every living cell has some form of a soul, to our collective cellular consciousnesses single cell life is not considered sacred (except to the unfortunate cell itself). Collective cellular life is considered sacred. That is to say that while the single cell has every right to go on living, it does not have the right to do so at the expense of the global community. This is a hard thing since once you have a life of any sort, you expect and intend to hold on to it until the bitter end. That’s where the soul and the right to life run into the conundrum of euthanasia, abortion and suicide. With respect to suicide, the soul in question may be for a time or permanently unbalanced. It is an inner state where the price of life is or seems to be too high to be worth enduring and the known pain of death less than that of life. Changing that mind set is a challenge for the individual and for any individual who may attempt to participate in the change. In the end, only the entity whose life it is can make the decision. No one has the right to prolong the spiritual, mental, physical or combination of agonies suffered without the consent of the sufferer. With euthanasia the victim is often so physically disabled that despite the need and intention to die, they aren’t capable of bringing about their own deaths. When such as situation is arrived at and able to be confirmed, euthanasia is a natural function and duty of those able and authorized to assist. Euthanasia is practiced by many other species out of compassion for the sufferer. Compassion and dignity are the key differences between an assisted acceptable death and murder. Where there is diminished mental capacity, the and the entity is not capable of ending its own life and suffering is not an issue there is no need to end that life. Where there is undue suffering a decision to prolong or end the life should be made by a neutral panel of observers in full possession of the facts and the rigors of the life lived. Abortion is a form of population control that, while cruel, is necessary under certain circumstances. Pregnancy as a result of rape, serious debilitating illness on the part of the infant or mother should be terminated at the request of the mother or, in the absence of mental incapacity, at the request of the legal entity governing the best interests of the victim. Pregnancy which will add an unsustainable burden to an impoverished mother to be of mother of existing children or where having a child will cause the girl or woman to become impoverished should be considered on a case by case basis with compassion and common sense shown for the mother to be and the unborn infant. Where it can be shown that the mother is incapable of raising the child or even herself then the infant should be put up for adoption at birth. Once a child has been conceived it is alive as a living entity though still dependent on it mother’s resources. That does not give it the automatic right to be born and live at any level of the natural world. No living thing on this planet has that right. What decides whether an entity lives of dies is the availability of the immediate resources of the environment to support the life. If the support is not there the entity dies. That is the harsh truth at any stage in any life. Many species have the ability to hold fertile eggs in stasis until conditions are favourable. Humans override that ability and its consequence is overpopulation. So a soul guarantees nothing in life or death, it merely provides the drive to live on more moment. Make your moment count.

The point of the excercise wasn't to convert anyone. It was merely to make people think along different lines and maybe get some off the wall input. It worked. margrace and WIP introduced some different aspects that could be developed into a thesis complicated enough to bore nearly everyone to death - which is why we ended up with the bible. That was the limit intellects at the time could be stretched to encompass. It's still a challenge for most people. The thing is, if people like me don't stir things up a bit, others can never get beyond the bible. It doesn't matter whether or not people agree with me or not as long as they think and question.

What makes you think that I think what I think is any more relevant than what you think or anyone else thinks? Yes Galaxies was the right word. Thanks. You're free to write what you think and answer my post. Why bother with something as trivial as a number that is referring to something that is part of the infinite? Let's here what you think - beyond the trivial I mean. I was kind of hoping someone would either add to what I said or find a way to prove it wrong or offer up an interesting alternative. Forget the nit picking and offer up some content.

I'm amazed considering the grammar, that anyone was able to respond to the original post. It made no sense. Subsequent posts didn't do much better. But somehow you all came to a happy conclusion. But do any of you actually understand that what you said was almost totally meaningless? Christopher Columbus would be proud.

To answer the question posed by the thread, I'd say the percentage that really care about politics is 30%. 60% will vote, but that doesn't mean they care much. About 10% at most are knowledgeable to some degree About 1% care enough to actually do something, like canvas for a candidate. A fraction of one percent care enough to run. Consequently, we end up with half baked politicians who don't really understand the issues elected by a populace with almost no clue about the issues. Then people wonder why the government does not do what they expect it to. The truth is, they don't really understand anything about what they think they want. There isn't time. Promise them a soccer pitch and they'll vote for you. Promise a sick person a new hospital, they'll vote for you. Promise accountability that's really needed and they won't vote for you but will complain there is no accountability after the election.

If you go back and check my original post on this aspect of the subject, I said the horse and the development of metallurgy were the two key differences between the rapid development of European culture and other cultures. By COMPARISON, other developments are not nearly so important since they all rely on the domestication of the horse. The next major thing was the evolution of metallurgy. Neither of these two achievements required a written language or anything else mentioned so far. BUT EVERYTHING ELSE REQUIRED THEM FIRST. There is no doubt that our current sophistication has relied on written language. But before it relied on written language it first relied on horses and metal implements that took us out of the stone age. How is that a difficult concept to get your heads around? As far back as we have been able to trace our association with horses, you have to understand that the evidence does not likely date from the very first interaction between people and horses. There had to have been a relationship there much earlier. It takes a long time even in this day and age for a new habit to gain social acceptance, so just imagine how long it took for primitive cultures to fully accept that horses were worth more than the next meal. Metal use is easier to track. Written language use is in the same category as horse use. The first written words were probably written in mud or sand. They would not have survived. Even so, the written word for its widespread use, depended on metal and the printing press. Medicines and so on were around long before civilization and their use is not confined to humans. Animals of all sorts have learned to use certain herbs and other plants for healing purposes. So medicinal use doesn't even separate us from other animals.

Certainly refrigeration changed how we moderns live. But there was no refrigeration when Europeans began to settle North America. Refrigeration is very recent and not at all vital to survival. All modern cultures including China's are "riding" on developments that were brought about by Europeans. China had some things first for sure, but since they isolated themselves, their culture didn't have the impact on human development it should have had. India was sort of in the same boat. It doesn't matter how long the average life was. What matters is how long life can continue at all. European technological advances are bringing about the end of all things fairly soon. The native Indians didn't live in peace and harmony. Far from it. They were just as aggressive and bloodthirsty as any other human culture. We are all people. We all are motivated by similar desires within the context of circumstances. The Aboriginal spirituality and ideology was not something that evolved by divine guidance. It's something that evolved in a technological vacuum. As such, having evolved as it did, it represented the opportunity I mentioned in a previous post. That was the opportunity to learn from each other. Instead of learning from each other, Europeans set about annihilating Aboriginal cultures wherever they found them. In Canada, the Beothuks of Newfoundland stand as the best example of a race of people who were essentially hunted down and exterminated for no good reason. The Spaniards did the same in Central and South America to various cultures there including the Aztecs and Incas.

People were eating horses long before any alphabet or writing. But since the word alphabet was used, I confined myself to the alphabet. But since you challenged me: "Soil from a Copper Age site in northern Kazakhstan has yielded new evidence for domesticated horses up to 5,600 years ago." http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/200...a-neo102306.php Enjoy reading the article. It corroborates most of what I've been saying without that being the thrust of the article.

Wrongo. The horse came before the alphabet. Without the horse there would have been no alphabet. Same for all subsequent developments. What you have to look at is building blocks. The horse was foundational to Western civilization. The alphabet was not. The printing press relied on there being an alphabet. Everything that DogonPorch and everyone else mentioned relied on the horse having been domesticated first. No civilization progressed beyond an agrarian civilization without the horse. In the Andes, they had something similar - the llama. But the llama was no war horse. After horses were domesticated in the Old World including in Asia, most wars were fought with horses being the most important aspect after the people themselves. Horses spelt the difference. But horses by themselves were not the whole story. In Europe, horses and metallurgy came together marrying production of products and transportation in a way that could not happen anywhere else on earth. Most of the Western advances mentioned required metal technology. The exception was the alphabet. But the alphabet was not a core development in terms of communication. It was not required to domesticate the horse or to find the wide variety of uses found for it. Metal refining didn't require an alphabet either. It required accessibility, proximity to other ores and transportation from the mine to a smelter and from the smelter to the end user. Spoken language was enough to accomplish all of those things. In other regions, there are sources of metal ores, but not in the variety, the markets and not with the magnificent ability of the horse to move the goods quickly. Camels, elephants, dogs, oxen and llamas all proved vastly inferior to the horse for all sorts of reasons although there were applications where one or the other was better in a given environment. But none of them could work in all of the environments like horses could and be kept fed and healthy. Horses were even taken to Antarctica. That didn't work out because the explorers underestimated the length of time and food necessary. In the end the horses were eaten, so even in death they still paid their way. Camels were tried here in Canada but they didn't work out. They smelt so bad mules and horses wouldn't tolerate them. People weren't tolerant of them either. The bottom line is that horses preceded development and were the key factor in helping man get past a purely primitive agricultural level - the level North and South Americans were at when Europeans arrived. The Inuit had copper, but no way to get it to a market and no way to transport it in quantity. It didn't even have to be dug up. It was just sitting there in the area of the Coppermine River. The Inuit could work it but without the horse and without the ability to remain in permanent villages, their metallurgical development was stunted. The Inuit generally only carried with them what could be eaten - including their clothes. Agriculture enabled villages to be semi permanent. Horses used for agricultural purposes allowed much bigger yields of crops which in turn supported larger population centres and reduced the impact and frequency of famines. The advances you have all espoused don't go far enough back in time. They're too recent and are essentially modern fringe benefits regardless of how important you think they are now. Your perspective is too rooted in a present that's divorced from its origins by technology. What you see around you today was for the most part not thought of yet during my parent's time. All of DogonPorch's contribution were developed in very recent memory. The horse by contrast was domesticated approximately five thousand five hundred years ago and they were an important food animal before that and still are in various parts of the world - particularly in Europe. That tells you that in the scheme of things, those modern developments are insignificant in the broad sense of history. Nothing you people have talked about even begins to approach that. So Europeans had horses for approximately five thousand two hundred years before North American Aboriginals. That is one hell of a physical advantage. But it still didn't help with the spiritual and philosophical aspect of Europeans and their ability to manage their civilizations without wrecking the planet. And that's where metal and later oil enter the picture and as great as all the benefits seem, they are benefits that have been mismanaged and used to harm the ability of life on earth to continue. In that context, the two different approaches to civilization take on a rabbit and tortoise aspect. Europeans have quickly fashioned amazing advances but unfortunately those amazing advances are poisoning everything and will bring about our extinction along with a lot of other species who are preceding us. As such, life as we know it will be lucky to last another century. Life as I knew it in the fifties is already long gone. The losses are huge but those that are too young to remember don't have much of a clue what's been lost and so don't miss the missing. Unfortunately, what is missing is vital to continued life on this planet - clean air, water, soil. Aboriginals without the horse or metals have not damaged the planet in the least and under their stewardship, the planet would have remained chemically clean and life would prosper for eons to come. Who is more advanced? Crash and burn Europeans with a death wish or Aboriginals who could live in harmony with the planet? An easy test of what's important is to start taking away from modern life all of the non-essentials. That is, those things not necessary for humans to continue to exist. Modern technology would be an early casualty. You don't need electricity to live so anything dependent on electricity would become an elaborate paper weight. Paper in its present form would be gone too. What would not be gone would be horses. They would reassert their position as the most important asset to human survival in a heart beat.

Sorry, the horse was the main difference. It was the difference in war, it was the difference in agriculture, it was the difference in transportation, it was the difference in mining, it was an important food animal. Humans owe virtually all important developments from the time horses were first domesticated to the versatility of horses. That's why there are so many breeds and why horses are so revered even today. Early large scale mining depended on horses to move ore and finished product. Other animals were used as well, but no other animal was so versatile and able to work in so many environments. Certainly lots of developments of all sorts don't appear to have any relationship to horses. But when you drill down through the relationships between one thing leading to another, you eventually find horses were essential early elements at the start of it all. Horses did not reappear back in North America until the Spanish conquests in central America and the southern US. They spread from there. North American natives didn't have very long to explore their relationship with horses but in the short time they had them, they became, on average better horsemen than Europeans. Their horses were superior in terms of hardiness and stamina too and if you take the time to research the movie Hidalgo, you'll find an explanation of why. Being ahead in industrial development has not turned out to be a good thing for the planet or the species that live on it in any way. We are the only species to have enjoyed a brief respite from the survival of the fittest regime and that is only temporary lasting at most 6 generations. That respite has ended and the average human life expectancy will diminish for today's children for the first time in recorded history due entirely to our (Europeans) having mismanaged the global environment. Most people alive today are not materially better off that they would be if things had progressed more slowly with attention and respect given to environmental factors. Western developed nations and China's elite do not make up most people. And if you count the genetic damage being done to our descendants through our inhaling of VOCs and other poisons, you can't count many of those either. To compare the printing press with the Aboriginal method of committing events to memory is a matter of viewpoint. Aboriginal verbal histories have been shown to be accurate as far back as the written word allows. But since the Aboriginal verbal history goes back further still, which is better? Story telling as a living art versus reading a book is two sides of the same thing. Which is better? Both are immensely enjoyable. Story telling destroys nothing environmentally. Reading books and newspapers is denuding the planet, changing weather patterns, habitats and causing human starvation and species extinctions world wide. Loss of trees for industrial and commercial use has reduced Haitians in the space of one generation to the point where they are eating "cakes" made of oils and clay to eat. How long do you suppose you can live eating mud? Haiti was a lush tropical island - paradise in our life times. Now it is hell on earth. When was the last time you ate mud pies for breakfast, lunch and supper. One thing you can say for it - it's filling. So Smallc you can't afford to look at progress from only one perspective. The word progress to me does not mean anything good. To me it's a word to inspire horror. Most native cultures were indeed civilized. You cannot apply our narrow view of civilization and arbitrarily decide that our civilization is the be all and end all. It is certainly not.

Before this conversation degenerates into a schoolyard scuffle, let me interject a little perspective. It isn't fair to say that Europeans were more advanced than the natives or that the natives were more advanced than the Europeans. Each culture advanced with the tools available. Europeans advanced with material possessions and technology. Aboriginals advanced spiritually and socially. There were pros and cons to both social constructs and physical reasons why they developed on divergent lines. Entire books have been written on these subjects. Suffice it to say that Europeans had two things that were not present in North America - the horse and ready access to a wide variety of metals in close proximity to one another. A few years ago, I spent some time analyzing popular religions to determine what the differences were if any. The religions I focused on were Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism and Aboriginal Belief Systems. I ignored the Chinese religions due to the language barrier. Buddhism isn't a religion and neither is what indigenous people practice. But these six are the main sets of beliefs that are affecting and have affected world history for the last thousand years or so. What I did was to compare these belief systems using identifiable criteria such as whether or not a single God entity was accepted or multiples. Religious days, a devil or devil like spirits and so on. I set it all up in chart form. When it was all done the results were interesting and sadly obvious. The four religions are all so similar they are nearly identical. All that is different are the customs attached to each. There was nothing better or worse about any of the customs between religions. Of the religions, Christianity eclipsed the others in terms of sheer violence, followed distantly by Islam. That is not to say that Muslims are any less violent, it's more about lack of economic opportunity. Deserts don't provide much of a spring board to world domination. Even now it's only spreading by piggybacking on Christianity. Judaism has always been a victim of oppression and that oppression has caused it to thrive rather than the opposite. Oppression and simple hardship tends to strengthen resolve. Hindu turned out to be the most advanced and most intelligently conceived in terms of its relationship with the actual, physical environment. The others tended to see man as a superior being whose mission was to rape and pillage the environment at will and at need. The Buddhist belief system was based more on common sense than any of the religions and more closely aligned with Aboriginal belief systems. As ancient as the Aboriginal belief system is, it turns out that it is at the same time the most modern and combines commonsense with the whimsical to make it comprehensible. In terms of reality and modern science, it makes not only the most sense, it makes the only sense. None of the other religions account for science and man's real place in the world as well as Aboriginal Beliefs do. That being said, I don't expect anyone to rush out and embrace the Aboriginal Belief systems. Their beliefs developed historically the same as everyone else's and there is a comfort zone attached to each. As well, there is history attached to each which help them make a weird kind of sense that bears no relation to the real world, Aboriginal beliefs included. But the thing is, Aboriginal Beliefs allow for wildlife to be accepted as equals among humanity. It allows humans to live in harmony with the environment. No other religion or belief system approaches this concept. Accepting the worth of other creatures is central to Aboriginal Beliefs and it also has to become central to 21st social understanding if we as a species are to survive this century. So in that sense, all Aboriginal cultures were more primitive yet more advanced at the same time than any other social groups on earth. They had not lost touch with what it takes to exist without wholesale destruction. That isn't to say they did this with any conscious intent because they didn't. They had no choice - primarily because they didn't have horses. Horses and when they were domesticated are the biggest difference between developed nations and undeveloped nations. Set against the ability to live in harmony with the environment has to be industrialization - or the complete abandonment of living in harmony with nature. Industrialization has given the ability to step outside the realm of the survival of the fittest regime and into the well buttressed illusion of techno domination. In the seventies we were taught in school that science would soon find the causes of most if not all diseases. We would find ways of working more efficiently and the work week would shrink to the point where people would be paid to stay home. The Russians had super farms where they were developing new strains of agricultural produce that would revolutionize food production. By the beginning of the twenty-first century, it had become pretty obvious that not only were none of those things true, but more and more, our technological advances were beginning to backfire. Diseases are becoming more resistant and are mutating into strains impervious to drug solutions. Better communications has meant longer hours not shorter. Technology has shortened the time from idea to finished product to such a degree, that there is no way the environment can replenish what we remove. Consequently even renewable resources are being consumed at a rate that is certain to cause the sixth extinction I keep mentioning. All it will take is for one vital resource to fail. Of our vital resources we have air, water and soil. We are contaminating the air as fast as we can extract oil from the ground. Every bit that is in the ground is intended to be burned and transformed into air pollution. The residue from oil all ends up in surface water. What ends up in the water eventually ends up in the soil. This could never have happened under the Aboriginal Belief system. So which is the right way? My view is that there is probably a happy medium that would allow progress in moderation. The key is to slow the pace of development and withdraw those elements that allow human over-population where such populations can't be sustained. That will cause a huge human die-off. But that die-off is going to happen sooner or later anyway regardless of what we do. The thing is, if we manage the die-off, we can ensure that humans survive extinction. If we don't manage the die-off, we almost certainly won't. So. Were Europeans more advanced because they invented most of the things we consider basic essentials today or were natives more advanced because their approach meant that the integrity of life on earth would be protected from the ravages of Chemical Winter and Nuclear degradation? The one difference between the two is likely only one thing - the speed at which new social elements are integrated into society. All over the planet, wherever Aboriginal populations have been faced with assimilation into European culture, there has been a wave of social collapse. The exceptions were those that had the option to evolve their social networks as ours developed. India is a good example. Those cultures that didn't have the opportunity or were so far back on the social evolutionary scale that they couldn't adapt have had major problems. The black problem in the US is an example of how hunter gatherers were brought from a hunter-gatherer social structure to Western lifestyles in the course of a single brutal boat ride. But their descendants have proven that given opportunity, black people have the mental equipment to be the equal of anyone. What continues to hold them back is their social boat anchors that too often stunt personal development. But blacks are certainly not alone in this. Aboriginal cultures the world over have exactly the same problem or worse. So in an an ugly way, slavery actually gave Afro cultures a leg up on other Aboriginal cultures. It isn't only animals and so on that evolve. It's also societies that evolve. The evolutionary process is not something that can be rushed. Democracy is the pinnacle of social evolution right now, as unwieldy as the process might be. Grafting Democracy onto other cultures, countries and people is not like taking a pill or handing someone a set of instructions and then expecting them to build an aircraft. It's much harder. So as obtuse as Aboriginals and other ethnic groups may appear to be from our perspective, they really do have impediments Western cultures aren't saddled with. When we have slow learners in a classroom setting, we have learned that there are ways of helping them reach their potential. It's been shown over and over again that abusing them doesn't work. Nurturing them has been shown to work and work well. That's why we have social safety nets. Only the fortunate never need them. But they have to be there in case you or I should fall and by you or I, I mean all Canadians, not just the fabulous few who might take a loss at the markets.

What you explained in that post bk59 was not clear to me before. So if there is no chance the code can be tampered with, I'm okay with your points. But yes go read the street racing legislation post and you'll see how it relates.

Smallc, I don't think you have interpreted Sentence 1 incorrectly. There is nothing unreasonable about the Aboriginal land claims from a historical perspective. The passage of time and the escalation of property and economic value has simply worked to expand the dimensions of the crimes committed against them. The reasonableness has to be fitted to the time the crime was committed not centuries later because governments could not get their acts together (pardon the pun). Government sloth and wrong-doing is not their fault. When someone is murdered or raped we don't allow the criminal to escape because a few decades have elapsed. Land crimes and social injustices are no different. What has happened since then is irrelevant to the 'original sins' but subsequent developments have to be factored into redress. That redress should be appropriately huge. There is no reason any native should live in poverty or be denied education. What they do with what they get is their affair, but that would have to be addressed with appropriate education. There is a lot that could be done differently to the benefit of the entire country. Unfortunately, the proper resolution of the issues will likely never happen. There is just too much money involved. But that does not diminish the wrongs committed against Aboriginals according to our own laws, not theirs. From my perspective, Europeans erred by not simply adopting the native concept of non-ownership of land and resources from the outset. The natives were on to something - all you have to do is think about the lyrics of John Lennon's song Imagine to understand the opportunity that was lost because none of the participants at the time had the mental or social tools to comprehend it. Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace... Reality of course would never have allowed it since European cultures at the time were so brutal and crude. But a lot that could have been learned was lost. That isn't to say there was an idyllic life being conducted by the aboriginals. But one tribe, the Neutrals may have held the key to maintaining lasting peace among nations. Losing their knowledge or techniques might be the single most important loss humanity has ever suffered.

We need the safety net in our social system but to make if work better, we need a ladder to help people climb off the net and back into productive jobs instead of the way it is now where we penalize them for trying to better themselves.

Thanks. I knew I had a typo in there somewhere. I couldn't remember what it was. Million, not billion.

Beware lest any man should spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not Christ. -Colossians, 2,8 “Was there ever a stronger argument put forth against spiritual growth and common sense?” -John Newell, 18/02/03 Get over the idea that there is some bearded guy sitting on a throne in the clouds letting on that he is God. If God were up there, astronauts would have spotted him by now. Likewise, forget about heaven being on a cloud or hell being somewhere in the bowels of the earth. These are very human concepts and that should tell you, generally speaking, who originated the ideas. Not God. If there is a God, he resides in, and is functionally, the electrical field generated by the collective consciousness and physical being of every living and inanimate thing that composes this planet. Think of him as a kind of energy envelope encompassing the planet and indeed all finite things as we know them, thin in desolate areas, denser where life and/or energy is abundant. All the physical and mental activities of living things generate electricity at the sub-cellular level. A human being or an elephant is the sum of a collection of cells working together. So is the collective consciousness of all life on the planet. You are not just you. The human body is simply a collection of separate cells, molecules and atoms working towards a common goal – keeping you alive for a predestined cycle of animate activity with greater or lesser success depending on choices made and chance. Each component cell has a transferable memory connected to but not wholly dependent upon its neighbour. The cells usually work in harmony with one another. When they don’t we are ill. Likewise when we as member living organisms that are an integral part of the earth, do not live in harmony with other life on earth and with the planet as composed of air, water, soil and the elements, the entire system can become ill. Everything in this universe and likely all of the 140 billion or so known universes, is a repetition of something else, it is all connected and the more versatile the design, pattern or system, the more often it is repeated in form or function or both. Nature does not like to re-invent the wheel when it comes to basic processes. That said, it follows that God, “his” angels, the Devil, his hordes, the afterlife (heaven or hell) all exist within the system of life on this planet if they can be said to exist at all. They do not have an address somewhere beyond the solar system. That “beyond” has been investigated and found to be empty of even stars or planets. It turns out that all of the known universes, the 140 billion of them and counting, exist on a plane similar to a sheet of paper. Above and below this plane, nothing has been found so far including heaven or hell. It can be said though, that heights of heaven or the depth of hell reside within and are generated by human brainpower. Without the human brain functioning on the sophisticated level it does, neither heaven nor hell can exist or has a need to exist. The God-entity can be considered the collective consciousness and the inter-atomic energy that is the glue, the metaphysical mitochondria that holds the earth, the solar system and space with all of its expanding universes together. In that way man can be understood to have been created in God’s own image because God’s image is not humanoid with head, arms, legs, torso and so on. His image is more likely to be the ethereal consciousness shared by man and every other living thing. In this way, God is truly omnipresent. No one knows if animals can share in the image or the concept of a God on a conscious level because so far, no one has been able to figure out how to discuss the possibility of God with another species. But we must give them the benefit of the doubt if for no other reason than we as a species have for most of our existence have denied that other species than ourselves can reason, have language, enjoy humour, music, tell stories, or have souls. In short, in the last years of the twentieth century and in the early years of the twenty first, we have found that many if not most other species share traits with us that were once thought to be the sole property of the human race to the point where we formerly considered ourselves beyond the process of evolution. Regardless, most if not all cultures allow for the presence of various animals in heaven. What kind of heaven would it be without the companionship of the animals we’ve known and loved? Their inclusion suggests an acceptance of animals within the scope of the collective id. If dogs, cats, horses and birds can be in heaven, what about their friends? We all know they have friends too. For a human heaven to exclude their pet’s friends would diminish the concept of heaven for the animal and soon the entire concept would unravel as other as multispecies heaven concepts competed for space with ours. Ultimately every living thing that has ever lived would have to be given lodging in heaven. At that point how are the heavenly needs of dinosaurs met in a manner that doesn’t mess up our notion of paradise? What about all the terrorists running after the crowds of innocent virgins. What do the virgins think of all this? Are there cockroaches, bed bugs and deer ticks? Heaven is supposed to be a place where only the selected few can gain entrance – the non sinners in other words. Under that definition heaven would mostly be populated by new-borns of any species without a cogent thought in their heads for the simple virtue of having died before they could commit any sins. Hell, conversely would be overcrowded with debauchery of every sort. There would be no animal life whatsoever since we can’t ascribe sin to an animal that killed to eat and evolved to perform that service to the cycle of life. There would be no virgins present because every virgin woman or girl who ever died would be needed to fill the quota for the Muslim terrorists. In fact at some point the number of terrorists is going to surpass the available dead virgins and they will have to be rationed. It is accepted that not everyone’s vision of heaven is the same. Aboriginal people and hunters had their version of heaven developed on TV. The “Happy Hunting Ground” has to be part of the picture (as plasticized by the media). Possibly no consideration for the animals is present in this picture. Others think heaven is a successful battle where all the infidels are annihilated over and over again like a broken record. Eternity would soon get extremely boring at that rate with no time off for anything else. Still others think heaven is all about lolling in the clouds while being fed cream cheese on a bagel. None of the visions allow for any sort of eliminatory body functions so it follows that no eliminatory functions equals no body. No body precludes the need to eat cream cheese and bagels and eliminates the need to bear arms. What arms? You don’t need arms. You don’t eat, don’t need to clean your teeth or wipe your ass. So what are you going to actually do in a heaven like that? Sounds remarkably like the fate of a person born with no arms, legs, vision or hearing. Personally, I don’t see anyone rushing to achieve that heavenly status among the living. Before wishing to be granted an address in heaven, it might be instructive to figure out just what an eternity in heaven would entail. Eternal bliss could get pretty boring after about ten minutes or a century. Suppose after a hundred years or so, bliss wears off? What do you do for the rest of eternity? Hang around and haunt some dreary castle? Take turns maybe? Sounds like Purgatory could be the step after heaven instead of the intermediate stage we’ve thought it was up to now. Then there is the consideration that heaven, hell and purgatory could be getting pretty crowded by now and in a few decades, another nine billion or so are going to show up looking for accommodation. Pretty soon the people who lived before the twenty first century are going to be outnumbered and overwhelmed by the twenty first century billions who will be making a mass exodus due to the coming natural disasters and likely extinction of the very last century. What happens to heaven, hell and purgatory when there is no one left to imagine them? Hell has always been thought to be somewhere near the earth’s core. It must be packed to bursting down there to the point that volcanic activity will soon be increasing. Sorry. For my money, hell has always been right here on the earth’s surface. Hell is in the prisons, reformatories, mental institutions, hospitals, destitute developing nations - wherever inner and outer conflict is to be found. There has never been a need for biblical scripture to point out the precise location of hell. Often enough, it comes looking for us. As for the bible and other religious tenets including the Dead Sea Scrolls, they equate to the super hero comic books of their age. No doubt more astute thought and consideration has been put into these works than any other collection of literature in history. If those documents were lost with the spiritual collapse our civilization and another civilization grew and researched present day man, what do you suppose they’d find the most of? Probably comic books full of super heroes and fashion magazines. It would then be presumed these cartoon icons were our gods if a god concept were understood or thought to be relevant to future thought processes. Don’t assume future archeologists will be human. They might be supersized bedbugs that managed to survive human caused Chemical Winter. We have already shown that man does not have a lock on mental or physical evolution. Spiritual thoughts are likely a luxury of cooperative organization. Ants could potentially evolve the next religion. When you zoom in slowly to resolution just lower than the naked eye can discern you see all sorts of life forms you otherwise would never dream existed. You see ticks hitchhiking on fleas, mites living on the pedipalps of much larger mites. At the molecular level, you see the single celled animals we studied in science class. Zoom in further and you are into molecular structure. DNA and mitochondria – the instructions for life and the glue that holds it together in all living things become visible. Then zooming in still further and you are into worlds within worlds at the atomic then sub-atomic level. At this level, whole universes in the form of protons, neutrons and electrons spin their magic. This construct is the universe at the other end of the scale. This is the micro universe as opposed to the macro universe we see through telescopes. What hits you is the profound similarity between the two. Nature has repeated itself to a degree we are not yet capable of fathoming. The micro universe is one dominated by electro magnetic fields in the same manner as the world we see around us because it is the world we see around us. The micro world in all its sub-visual levels is what makes the world as we know it possible in every way. It can easily be thought of as the Hand of God. But all of this is invisible from our scale and perspective. At our scale, the vast distances between neutrons, protons and electrons is represented by for instance a granite rock – a very solid substance – or the hind leg of a racehorse – a fluid substance by comparison. So if you zoomed out from our world it is not unthinkable that our entire known collection of universes are actually nothing more than a sheet of paper in someone’s out basket. At some point viewed from a large enough perspective, our entire understood reality is a solid something somewhere. And from that, zoom out some more and the process repeats itself infinitely. So where is God in all of this when you think on a scale that large? When you think on such a grand scale, it doesn’t take long before you arrive at the conclusion that the traditional notion of God is a very superficial way to contemplate the magnitude of what God could actually be and how incomprehensible it is to think that God is in any way responsible for directing our truly infinitesimal lives. As if that weren’t enough, you then have to consider where “God” came from. Did he suddenly pop into existence? Did a gas cloud coalesce into the spiritual being to end all spiritual beings? Did he have roller skates when he was a kid? As warm and fuzzy as a traditional God might be to most people, the thought process that supports it just can’t do the notion justice unless you are prepared to think on a much larger scale than people do now.

This joke has been making the rounds for years but it makes a point that's hard to ignore but equally hard to answer: This was written by a construction worker in Fort MacMurray - he sure makes a lot of sense to me! I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a rig site for a Fort Mac construction project. I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand -- I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their ass drinking beer and smoking dope. Could you imagine how much money the provinces would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque? Please pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you will pass it along though, because something has to change in this country, and soon !!!

What Tango said about how talking to the government is like talking to yourself is nearly exactly right. The difference is when you talk to the government in front of an audience. While you can't expect your words to have a direct effect, there is a trickle down effect that can have noticeable impact. My environmental efforts when I ran for Mayor of Pickering were noticed and even though I didn't win, I had a greening influence on the entire Pickering Council as well as the thousands of people who voted for me. Charter.rights has a point too especially when it comes to government officials. People tend to think elected officials are knowledgeable people. Just like the public, some are, some aren't. What I learned from running municipally and provincially, is that while people say they want better candidates, mostly they want comfort. Most voters have almost no idea what the issues are, never mind the rights and wrongs of the issues. When it comes to delivering the cold, hard facts, politicians and the public stampede in the opposite direction - especially when those facts are contrary to their entrenched personal beliefs. That's why religion is still with us despite common sense. That's why George Bush was elected a second time. Public stupidity is difficult to underestimate. But there is no law against stupidity so politicians with charisma and little else acquire decision making positions despite having no understanding of the issues. Emissions are a good example. We have emissions regulators. We have medical people. We have emissions problems. Ask yourself this: How can we be having emissions problems if we have people in decision making positions who know how to end the problems? Emissions problems are very solvable but require political will for those solutions to be put into play. Do you suppose the emissions regulators talk to the doctors? Do you suppose either of those groups know one iota about Chemical Winter? I spent some time on the phone talking to the decision makers at Environment Canada and the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to determine what their levels of expertise could be. The conversations leads me to believe our Environment Ministries are little more than a collection of Headless Horsemen who showed an ability to memorize in the school system but unfortunately did not develop the ability to reason or think. The inability to think things through is evident right through our society at every level in every discipline. That's why there are so many workers and so few business owners. To be a successful business owner, you have to be able to think. To be an employee, you have to be able to follow instructions. Sure you have to think too, but the degree and necessity for deep thought is a much shallower exercise. Most don't even do that. The last book I wrote - Abuse of Power illustrated what I've just said perfectly. I went to Auto Fest in Oshawa - a huge car show with thousands of auto enthusiasts in attendance. People who restore cars to this level are exceptionally skilled and resourceful. They are very smart about what they do and how they do it. For the most part, the cars in car shows are far better built than any manufacturer was ever able to do. Surrounded by all these ostensibly smart people, I had this book that was entirely relevant to their way of life. But the level of interest was near zero. Most could not get past the concept that street racing is dangerous and needs to be stopped. Some got very animated on the subject. Bear in mind that virtually 100% of these people were street racers themselves in their younger days and all of the cars from the mid-sixties to mid-seventies in the show were built by the manufacturers expressly for street racing. Also bear in mind that the book is not about whether or not street racing should or should not be allowed. It's about the fact that the law was passed by fraudulent means and that it illegally denies rights and destabilizes all of Ontario's existing legislation. As if that isn't bad enough, it enabled the police to acquire powers that took a thousand years of hard fought political battles in several countries to take away from people like them. And McGuinty handed it right back to them without a struggle. The facts and statistics were pulled out of context and a bill of goods was sold to the legislature without the required alternatives being explored first. These brilliant people did not get it. This is the mentality the Aboriginals have been fighting for centuries. Angus made a good point about native youths and their disinclination to shift for themselves. The centuries of government abuse have instilled in native culture what is known as a victim's mentality. It's a syndrome that is easy to instill, difficult to break. That's because those who acquire it get crafty when they realize how easy it is to garner misplaced sympathy and cash/food. This is a trait that is common to all including entire countries, societies, animals, birds, reptiles and even some fish. It's a sneaky way of asserting leverage. It's not something you can blame an individual for. All living things are opportunists and no living thing can be blamed for taking an easy out if it's to their apparent advantage. Victims-mentality exhibitors tend not to see the big picture. Not because they can't but because the big picture may not appear to be in their best interests and changing direction to accommodate it generally means a disruption of their comfort zone. Literally no one wants to work when a living will be handed to them with little or no effort on their part. Especially when the handout are given in such a way that current benefits are curtailed in tune with the amount of work done. In short, the system often has a way of penalizing people for entering the work force. Single mothers are an excellent example of this. The situation common to Third World countries is this same scenario on a larger scale. We victimized them, then gave them medicine that increased their survival rate beyond what their physical natural resources can support. Now they are all on life support from the developed world while we continue to rape their natural resources and steal their best thinkers and most skilled workers. Thus we are ensuring that Third World countries can never progress beyond their miserable status. There are pockets of prosperity that are the exception rather than the rule but those pockets of development are in precarious positions surrounded by vast populations in need. It's only a matter of time before they are overrun and the same goes for us unless we tighten up our borders and legislation. If we don't the problems faced by Aboriginals in this country will be swamped in a sea of immigration - a telling factor that is already asserting itself.

Well then we may be on the same page...

Thank you for the explanation Angus. It's a far cry from what you were saying earlier although maybe this last bit was what you meant. No I don't care to support someone who could support themselves. And like you say, a bum is a bum regardless of race. But the reality is that from the beginning, European contact tended to force Aboriginals to become bums. There doesn't seem to be much literature out there that says differently. Once you start a family off on a mindset, it bounces through generations and is difficult to stop. I've seen it happen through five generations of my own family. The actions of my grandfather are directly related to the welfare of my nephew's children and the milestones through the different lives stick out like beacons. Not everyone is damaged but on my brother's side, the damage is total devastation so far. Only I escaped the damage and even that can be considered a matter of opinion. Even knowing the reasons and the history does not necessarily help anyone avoid the consequences of what happened generations earlier. So the response you received from those lazy natives is completely understandable to me. And besides that, you have to bear in mind their culture was and often still is one of women doing the work, men doing the directing (or thinking about it) in many cases. Women ran the households. That's how our culture was too, but we've educated our way out of it for the most part though not completely. And that is a very recent development for us historically speaking.

As I mentioned, every level of government commits criminal code offences on a regular basis. Most of the time they don't know they are doing it. That does not mean a crime has not been committed. Just because the Crown does something does not mean a crime has not been committed. In every piece of legislation - somewhere it says this: "the Crown is bound." That means the Crown is accountable. It also means the Crown is not above making mistakes and having to pay for them. Bound means liable. Even the Crown is not above the law. You don't hear much about it because there are so many escape clauses, costs of doing business and ratholes built into our legislation that it's difficult to nail the perpetrators. That doesn't mean the crimes are not committed. It means that it's too expensive for a member of the public to prosecute. It also means that for the most part, you cannot count on the police to do their sworn duty in such a case because they mistakenly believe or publicly advise that they don't have jurisdiction in such cases. The fact is they do. What they do instead is obstruct justice. And that is a difficult hurdle to overcome. Some of my investigations have been pretty scary affairs and all of my friends and neighbours think I should have 24 hour body guards due to some of the stuff I've uncovered. I have seen police literally shake in their boots at the thought of being drawn into these investigations. I know from first hand experience just how rough and ugly it can be when you start finding out incriminating details about public officials and events. Those of you who are against the Aboriginals should take a deep breath and think about the legal and physical obstacles the Aboriginals have faced thus far. They are the only large organized group in Canada who have a clear understanding of just how deep the criminal behavior in our governments goes. They are fighting for their rights and a by product if they're successful will be that we will benefit from the indecent exposure of governments' filthy laundry. They have courage born of extreme abuse. My research into government practices has revealed disgusting and mind-boggling abuses by civil servants. Abuse of power is routine. Instead of criticizing the Aboriginals we should be helping them and cheering them on. They are our only hope of wringing honesty out of cunningly corrupt government institutions. I know what I've said sounds reactionary and fanatical but if any of you wants to work with me on any of these issues, or even a new issue, I guarantee you will do an about face in less than a day. My hobby is investigating government crime. There is no shortage of subject material. Too bad no one is paying me to do it. I'd be set for life and well into the next.

One more thing Angus and Wild Bill, Don't lose sight of the fact that the builder, intentionally or not started the problem. The fact that he didn't do his research is no one's fault but his. In a car accident he would be paying for that. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. One way or another, he tried to take advantage of a situation and got burned. He's no martyr and the town should have realized that immediately and acted to end the situation. The correct end to the situation would have been to cede the property as it was when the issue arose. It would have been a timely wake up call to all levels of government that it has come time to pay the piper. That would have created a precedent and that's no doubt why they didn't act. But by not acting, they invited the current nightmare. But the nightmare has always been there and at some point it has to be addressed. There is no way around it. All of the abuses on either side are simply distractions that keep the public's attention away from the core issue. The Aboriginals are playing the situation like a fiddle. The longer we wait to face facts, the worse will be the outcome. The inescapable fact is that every level of Canadian government has been committing criminal acts of almost every type imaginable against the Aboriginals for centuries. There is no way to hide that fact or hide from it and there is no way to rationalize it. This has to end and wrongs have to be redressed properly or as properly as they can be given the time that has passed. The fact that time has passed and many of the players have passed away does not change a thing.