# Let's argue about terrorism! And do it in the right place



## Parko (Jan 15, 2004)

George Bush was right.

Admin comments :

This thread was split from another topic as it was way off topic and breached almost every rule of the site! 

Please read the forum rules - in particular, rules 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 & 10!


----------



## Greebo (Jan 15, 2004)

> George Bush was right


 Where are the weapons of mass distraction then?


----------



## Parko (Jan 15, 2004)

Sorry I got distracted, what are we looking for? Everyone knows about Saddams missing tampax.


----------



## Slateman (Jan 15, 2004)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can everyone just get over this whole Saddam thing??!!
I think I speek for most of the people to. At least for Greebo I am sure, and he is majority straight after Watso.
LOL I forgot Mr Sob I.


----------



## wattso (Jan 15, 2004)




----------



## Parko (Jan 15, 2004)

If you say so Wattso. How many Iranians did die from Iraqi slaughter?


----------



## adullthud (Jan 15, 2004)

Well Krim, you posted a comment in a forum and then had the audacity to claim you speak for most people. That ************ is an invitation to comment. As to the mate. In the first instance it was used as "hey let me explain type of mate" then you used it as a "I dont know who you are but my opinion is better than yours " type of thing where as my MATE is meant as a complete and total insult and is what people use just before they go the nut. In this case only in a cybersense of course.
Now the point that you appeared to overlook in the intial is that the picture is funny. I laughed and most of the peopel at work I sent it round to laughed. You didnt. Or did you but because you'd alraedy seen it you could play holier than though.
Get a sense of humouror grow old and have no friends.
And yeah, saddam is an evil bastard and the Yanks gave him all the support he needed because they hated Iran more then they hated him.


----------



## wattso (Jan 15, 2004)




----------



## Parko (Jan 15, 2004)

Many countries sell other countries weaponry, America is but one of a list of em,even hypocritical would be hippies France. George senior coulda gone in and got rid of Saddam back then just like you said, but didn't have the balls cause of media outrage, young Bushy wushy does have the nuts and good on him. Saddam got what was coming so stop moping about it. Many people in rich countries like us enjoy the luxury of being amateur philosophers but you live off the fat of war so who are you to preach, think about it.


----------



## Greebo (Jan 15, 2004)

What's this thread about again?


----------



## Parko (Jan 15, 2004)

The Iraq war obviously, you can tell by the Steve Irwin photo in the first post.


----------



## alopacia (Jan 15, 2004)

Greebo said:


> What's this thread about again?



hahaha lmfao greebo, its all your fault mate, I was definately thinking of crimes against humanity when I posted that one...

and leave adulthood alone, HE IS MY MATE.....


----------



## Greebo (Jan 15, 2004)

Thanks Parko.
It all makes sense now.


----------



## wattso (Jan 15, 2004)




----------



## Parko (Jan 15, 2004)

I do enjoy hearing your opinion Wattso, which is why I continued the conversation when you disagreed with mine. If I thought your opinion worthless then I would just right you off as one more lost leftie and not bother conversing.


----------



## wattso (Jan 15, 2004)

I wasnt clear enough. George bush was right to depose saddams regim. YES. I dont think he was right, for instance to cluster bomb or "carpet bomb" so much non military infrastructure. I'm aware that America claimed that iraq was hiding military hardware in such places, including weapons of mass destruction, but these allegations werein the end proven false. I question the justification of the deaths of so many civilians, "just in case". It just strikes me that the worlds most powerful military force, could not do a cleaner job than they did.
They have satelites capable of seeing something the size of a basketball from space and god knows what other advanced hardware, yet they choose to simply bomb the **** out of iraq from the air. George must have been really embarrest he couldnt even catch Osama bin laden, who was afterall, the original target in the "war against terrorism". seems like deposing another dictator, [saddam] was to save face after all bushs retoric about "war on terrorism" after sep11 and failing to capture the real no1 culprit.
Just my thoughts.


----------



## Parko (Jan 15, 2004)

You make it sound like the war on terrorism is over and the yanks failed to catch Bin Laden. They are still hunting him and the war on terrorists and terrorist states is just beginning. Better get used to it cause nothing you complain about is going to stop it.


----------



## wattso (Jan 16, 2004)

Thing is Parko, "war on terrorism" is going nowhere, even if they do catch Osama and his militia. "terrorism" is a mentality, you cant have a war on mentality with any amount of bombs! there will always be more Osamas. The "war" has to be fought via education about racial tolerance, religious tolerance, and fought in our schools and neighbourhoods, internationally. teach kids these things and they do not grow up to be terrorist and "terrorism" dies out eventually. The whole idea of a "military war on terrorism" is absurd! It would never end, osama teaches osama jnr and he teaches his son , and so on , and on.
Yes ,use military force to bring down dictators, Yes use military for to prevent and stop "ACTS" of terrorism, but you cant win a war on terrorism with guns and bombs!........unless you want to nuke every islamic country!


----------



## Parko (Jan 16, 2004)

Nazism is a mentality too, should we have let it run loose? the only way to stop Islamic militants is with a bullet, they dont care about peace. You are dreaming of a world which exists only in fairy land.


----------



## wattso (Jan 16, 2004)

There is clearly a difference Parko. The nazi party was a german government regime , not just a mental;ity, it was backed by official policy [and we DID let it run loose, 6 million jews ring a bell] You can shoot all the islamic militants you like, but without changing the attitude of those people, you fight a losing battle. The terrorist enemy however is anyone who militant OR civilian who shares the ideals and cares to make a bomb, or hijack a plane, ANYONE, of any race or creed, or nationality, not only people of islamic persuasion. For instance, the unabomber, and that ex marine timothy macviey *spell
who blew up a gov building with a powerful car bomb, they were terrorist, too. A terrorist is not an islamic person wearing a turban and carrying a machine gun, thats a cliche, a terrorist is any unknown quantity with like intent. how can you win a war with an enemy you cant predict? will you shoot anyone who to you, "looks" like a terrorist? How will you find them? its not like they wear big bright badges saying "I'm an islamic militant terrorist, and proud of it!" where will you stop? do you want to eradicate islamic peoples entirely? Thats nazi mentality parko, you better organise some cattle cars mate.


----------



## Parko (Jan 16, 2004)

You are the only one who has suggested eradicating all islamic peoples on 2 occasions now, not me, so dont put your own words in my mouth. And thanks for the explanation of what a terrorist is I really had no idea. :lol:


----------



## wattso (Jan 16, 2004)

I thought as much parko mate, my pleasure. your words ~ the only way to stop Islamic militants is with a bullet, they dont care about peace.


----------



## Slateman (Jan 16, 2004)

I think that our overeducated members should start new thread about politics and leave this one to our steve.
Poor Parko, he should now better, avoid argumenting with Watso. LOL.
I hope he is not patronised to much  
That was no win situation from begining.


----------



## wattso (Jan 16, 2004)

That was no win situation from begining. 


There was no "contest" from the beginning was there? I thought we were just expressing opinions freely, in a reasonably civil manner. :shock: Did you disagree wildly with what i said slatey? Your allowed you know, just as im allowed to agree or not on any thing, no?


----------



## marc (Jan 16, 2004)

I beleive that someone just recently was deleted from the forum for using bad language, R.I.P SOB (AKA S.Irwin) I dont want to go to your funneral :wink: 

bad language has no place here oky doky 

Admin comment : Absolutely! Which is why I'm going through this thread now, removing it!!


----------



## AdhamhRuadh (Jan 16, 2004)

Ok, cool- I might have been out of line with the language, wont happen again. I can admit when I'm wrong, unlike some people... 
{cough, adulthud, cough}

KrimenuL


----------



## marc (Jan 16, 2004)

touchy touchy settle down krimbude, no need to get shirty, I am sure threr are other forums that deal with anger management.....I have been there..lol


----------



## marc (Jan 16, 2004)

KrimenuL said:


> Ok, cool- I might have been out of line with the language, wont happen again. I can admit when I'm wrong, unlike some people...
> {cough, adulthud, cough}
> 
> KrimenuL



there is alot of button pushers here but I am learning to egnore them, its a great site apart from the argument


----------



## AdhamhRuadh (Jan 16, 2004)

Man, I'm not getting 'shirty'.

PS. Youve really been to anger management?


----------



## marc (Jan 16, 2004)

KrimenuL said:


> Man, I'm not getting 'shirty', I just don't dont like adulthud.
> 
> PS. Youve really been to anger management?


Nar, :lol: just had aproblem with the putten pusher, but I got a grip on myself.....I think...lol


----------



## AdhamhRuadh (Jan 16, 2004)

I agree, it is a great site.
I also agree with wattso, that was a great movie  

KrimenuL


----------



## marc (Jan 16, 2004)

wattso said:


> That was a great movie, "Anger management"-Jack nicolson and Adam Sandler! Anyone see it? hilarious.



I havent seen it but I Jack you wouldnt think he could pull of a funny but he does it well, and I have always liked Adam specially when he was in Saturday night live.....


----------



## AdhamhRuadh (Jan 16, 2004)

lol  

KrimenuL


----------



## marc (Jan 16, 2004)

Krimdude are you new to the site?


----------



## wattso (Jan 16, 2004)

Yeah, surprisingly good performance from Jack , that one. I thought "About Schmidt" was a bit of a let down though. Adam is great, have you seen "Big daddy" or "Happy gilmour"?


----------



## marc (Jan 16, 2004)

wattso said:


> Yeah, surprisingly good performance from Jack , that one. I thought "About Schmidt" was a bit of a let down though. Adam is great, have you seen "Big daddy" or "Happy gilmour"?



see them all and liked them all even about schmidt


----------



## AdhamhRuadh (Jan 16, 2004)

Marc, why would you ask me if I'm new to the site? Am I that Transparent? Lol. Yes, I am. Why? :? 

PS. Yes, I've seen all of the movies you mentioned, Wattso. I agree, About Schmidt was a bit of a let down. I really liked Big Daddy and Happy Gilmore, and although I've seen them many, many, many times, they stil seem to be funny. Have you seen The Waterboy?

KrimenuL


----------



## Greebo (Jan 16, 2004)

Everyone take a deep breath and say with me....
"Goose fra bahhhhhhhh...."


----------



## AdhamhRuadh (Jan 16, 2004)

Goose Fra Bahhhhhhhh

KrimenuL


----------



## _popp_ (Jan 16, 2004)

"I feel pretty oh so pretty"


----------



## marc (Jan 16, 2004)

KrimenuL said:


> Marc, why would you ask me if I'm new to the site? Am I that Transparent? Lol. Yes, I am. Why? :?
> 
> PS. Yes, I've seen all of the movies you mentioned, Wattso. I agree, About Schmidt was a bit of a let down. I really liked Big Daddy and Happy Gilmore, and although I've seen them many, many, many times, they stil seem to be funny. Have you seen The Waterboy?
> 
> KrimenuL



Just a big welcome to you thats all


----------



## Slateman (Jan 16, 2004)

I am refering to Adulthood and Krimenul.
I deleted few post in this topic. They do not represent our spirit here in our group. 
Next time I will delete the member instead, to save moderators time.


----------



## adullthud (Jan 16, 2004)

> I beleive that someone just recently was deleted from the forum for using bad language, R.I.P SOB (AKA S.Irwin) I dont want to go to your funneral :wink:
> 
> bad language has no place here oky doky



fuuny Jan, You didnt delete this one.
I think you will also find that my lauguage was impeccible. and your inference to the expulsion of myself was unwarrented.


----------



## wattso (Jan 16, 2004)

LOL 






LOL Popp! :lol:


----------



## Slateman (Jan 16, 2004)

Adulthood If your post would be OK , We would not had to delete it. You can start fight with Inflaming post using perfect language. That is not much appreciated. Since this I had to delete another post of your stiring krimenul in another topic. You know what you doing so just stop it and enjoy friendly atmosphere please.


----------



## Parko (Jan 16, 2004)

Wattso mate I'll agree to disagree with you on our little conversation but will point out that eradicating islamic militants and terrorists and eradicating the islamic people as a whole is totally different, and I am baffled that you who seem to regard yourself so highly cant see the difference. Slatey forgive me, I now see you are right, it was pointless trying to speak of these things with a left wing looney who though undoubtedly of good intention is blind to his own ignorance.


----------



## wattso (Jan 16, 2004)

Your missing my whole point Parko!!!!! Who decides who might be militant or/and terrorist [without due trial and evidence], when your dropping clusterbombs from airplanes!! or are they making "terrorist seeking missiles" these days? Is It nessesary to carpet bomb a country to rubble to make sure you get the "terrorist" hiding there? please say what your thinking in plain english and stop dodging the point in question with nonsense about "left wing loonies" etc. I want to hear your veiws but you dont offer them , you just try to ridicule mine. what part didnt make sense to you? why didnt it make sense? elaborate a little on your ideas and we can enjoy discussion in a pleasant, informative and fun way. ok


----------



## kevyn (Jan 17, 2004)

You guys don't believe what you see on the news do you?


----------



## lutzd (Jan 17, 2004)

Admin comment : 

This thread was split from another topic as it was way off topic and breached almost every rule of the site! 

Please read the forum rules - in particular, rules 1, 2, 4, 5, 8 & 10!

It has since been edited and offensive language has been removed.


----------



## ackie (Jan 17, 2004)

i like chicken


----------



## Amy (Jan 18, 2004)

As far as "The War on Terrorism" goes, the ammunition we use should be books and lecturers more than bombs and guns. As long as we have videos of Osama Bin Laden (whether real or not is irrelevent) reaching people of a like mentality, urging them to wage war on whom ever is enemy #1 for that week we will never win the "war". We must educate those who are potential targets for this type of propaganda so that they may be able to realise what are truths and falsehoods in what they receive. We must educate them so that if they do get asked to follow Osama or whom ever is trying to recruit using terrorist/militia type propaganda they are able to make an informed choice on the matter. And maybe in process we are able to increase our own limited education so that we may be able to know how to better win our "war".

Just as a side note though, it is my opinion that we will never be fully able to stop the terrorism mentality because we can never truely know what peoples mindsets are and for us to really appreciate the good in this world, there must always be evil. For evil is as much the product of good as good is of evil.


----------



## Slateman (Jan 18, 2004)

Amy said:


> We must educate those who are potential targets for this type of propaganda so that they may be able to realise what are truths and falsehoods in what they receive. We must educate them so that if they do get asked to follow Osama or whom ever is trying to recruit using terrorist/militia type propaganda they are able to make an informed choice on the matter. .



I think that we have better chance to turn sahara in to green garden.


----------



## Parko (Jan 18, 2004)

Been away for a few days so missed the fun, but I no longer see the point in discussing this as who is going to change their mind anyway? Just dogs howling at the moon. Wattso wrote himself out of my books for worthwhile debate when he started insinuating I am a Nazi, matey a Nazi is a better enemy to make than I am.


----------



## Amy (Jan 18, 2004)

Why is it so hard? I am talking of those who haven't yet been recruited. Surely we must try before we write people off? It will be hard, never said otherwise. But I dont think that blowing people up is any better. In fact it makes us look even worse and justifies the propaganda which is out there.


----------



## Rina (Jan 18, 2004)

Wow, thought I had wandered onto the wrong site.


----------



## wattso (Jan 18, 2004)

wattso said:


> Thing is Parko, "war on terrorism" is going nowhere, even if they do catch Osama and his militia. "terrorism" is a mentality, you cant have a war on mentality with any amount of bombs! there will always be more Osamas. The "war" has to be fought via education about racial tolerance, religious tolerance, and fought in our schools and neighbourhoods, internationally. teach kids these things and they do not grow up to be terrorist and "terrorism" dies out eventually. The whole idea of a "military war on terrorism" is absurd! It would never end, osama teaches osama jnr and he teaches his son , and so on , and on.
> Yes ,use military force to bring down dictators, Yes use military for to prevent and stop "ACTS" of terrorism, but you cant win a war on terrorism with guns and bombs!........unless you want to nuke every islamic country!



Amy, I said this early on and was written off as a left wing loonie. looks like you and i are a "party elite"! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Amy (Jan 18, 2004)

Oh ahh Wattso, I didn't even know I was a member! They are efficient these days aren't they?!


----------



## Slateman (Jan 19, 2004)

Oh MY GOT. Love is in the air. :wink:


----------



## basketcase (Jan 19, 2004)

*.*

go watch bowling for columbine.

cheers, jono


----------



## wattso (Jan 19, 2004)

From "bowling for columbine" teachers guide page! [a good point]

One student said, "If you don't have any boundaries, then anyone can be a terrorist." Another said, "The U.S. government won't define terrorism because they don't want to be able to be considered terrorists." 

These comments echoed Eqbal Ahmad's insight that countries that have no intention of being consistent will resist defining terms. As one student wrote after the activity: "I also realized how many terrorism acts the U.S. has committed. When our government doesn't define terrorism, it makes me think that they just want a free shot to kill anyone they want." Wrote another student: "Bush needs to define terrorism in front of our nation before he does anything else, and then he needs to stick with the definition, not bend it to suit the U.S." 

And this is from American students!!! :shock:


----------



## Eggy (Jan 19, 2004)

> These comments echoed Eqbal Ahmad's insight that countries that have no intention of being consistent will resist defining terms. As one student wrote after the activity: "I also realized how many terrorism acts the U.S. has committed. When our government doesn't define terrorism, it makes me think that they just want a free shot to kill anyone they want." Wrote another student: "Bush needs to define terrorism in front of our nation before he does anything else, and then he needs to stick with the definition, not bend it to suit the U.S."
> 
> And this is from American students!!!


The education has started.


----------



## Amy (Jan 19, 2004)

Slatey~ I have boyfriend sweet, sorry 

Am going to vid shop soon, will get bowling for columbine on DVD and give you my opinion on it tomorrow.


----------



## wattso (Jan 19, 2004)

And I am terminally married, with little professors, remember! 

well...professorette's!


----------



## Amy (Jan 20, 2004)

My vid shop doesn't have Bowling for Columbine. Strange.

I think there is also a slight age difference aswell lol.


----------



## luke (Jan 20, 2004)

BASIC RULE OF NATURE

MAY THE STRONGEST SERVIVE !!!!
who cares who is right or wrong wake up to your selvs its who ever can put there point across the strongest what ever way they go about doing it. and unless your going to DO somthing don't waist your usless breath


----------



## Greebo (Jan 20, 2004)

I was so distracted by the bad spelling that I missed the point.

Sorry Wattso...I slipped into English teacher mode again.


----------



## adullthud (Jan 20, 2004)

luke said:


> BASIC RULE OF NATURE
> 
> MAY THE STRONGEST SERVIVE !!!!
> who cares who is right or wrong wake up to your selvs its who ever can put there point across the strongest what ever way they go about doing it. and unless your going to DO somthing don't waist your usless breath



As usual misreading of the original. What it initially implied was that the most appropriate for the prevailing conditions would ultimately become the dominant.

Evolution. that could be an interesting one to argue about espescially if the god botherers are about.


----------



## wattso (Jan 21, 2004)

LOl Greebo ! :lol:


----------



## Amy (Jan 21, 2004)

> Evolution. that could be an interesting one to argue about espescially if the god botherers are about.



Religion could stir up a lot of issues and offend a few people. Sounds like fun! Whats the statement?


----------



## luke (Jan 21, 2004)

religion is out of date we know far too much to be bound by mythical crap no one has the answer so why dont we all strive to find out insted of binding our selfs to one religion or belife


----------



## luke (Jan 21, 2004)

priests / politicians whats the diference its all about control systems. 
absolute freedom of choice and direction ?? whats that??


----------



## wattso (Jan 21, 2004)

Can you elaborate a little please Luke?


----------



## luke (Jan 21, 2004)

i could type for hours on the subject but im at work sorry.
really how free is the free world we can only make choices that have been made for us to choose. humans are the masters of elusion ( why do it if we can make them think we've done it ) etc...etc..
i just think that every one should look at absoultly every thing there is to look at before they say they have an answer and i will love to meet the person who thinks they have done that


----------



## Amy (Jan 21, 2004)

Luke~ You have made a valid point. But it seems to me, from my interpretation of your posts that you are talking about monotheistic, pantheistic mainstream religions. 


> we can only make choices that have been made for us to choose


Not all religions have a set path for people to follow. You have made a rather general statement here.


----------



## africancichlidau (Jan 21, 2004)

> you are talking about monotheistic, pantheistic mainstream religions



Exactly what I was going to say Amy


----------



## Slateman (Jan 21, 2004)

I am strongly religious person. Nearly fanatic. My got is alien and just watch out you barbarians, when he returns he will fix you up.
Non believers you.


----------



## africancichlidau (Jan 21, 2004)

Oh no! We have an E.T. worshipper in our midst!
Or then again, he could be worshipping the Alien God of Snake Poos ?


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

http://bahai.about.com/

Each to his/her own!  I dont personally beleive in or practice religion at all, while I beleive in what christ taught, im not sure if I beleive in the literal existance of the man in the flesh [or otherwise]. I see religion and beleif in what christ taught as two very different concepts. christ taught love tolerance etc whereas religion itself has only ever taught, hate and intolerance [think burning heretics, crusades etc].

As for the concept of "GOD" ? Im workin on that  I look at the perfection of earth and its place in the universe and I wonder if theres not more to it than sheer fluke as random evolution suggest.
consider:

1. the placing of earth, just so in relation to our sun that life can thrive, given there appears to be no other even close to supporting life in "the big neighbourhood"
2. the biological perfection of our eco systems, indeed the global ecosysten itself, how well it works, [when were not destroying it] how finely tuned and balanced .
3. random symbiosis of species for example: clown fish and enenomies,
both serve the other.
4. natures intricate workings, e.g. species of plants whos seed pods only open after fire when space for light [photosynthesis] and ash for fertiliser is avail to the new seedling to grow.
you have to ask yourself the chances of such extreme and complex perfection being nothing but fluke! The chances of it being truely unique in all the universe, just one in countless trillions, indeed infinty. too big a fluke? :?: :idea:


----------



## Slateman (Jan 22, 2004)

Africa poos are the sign , don't you know anything?
And not ET but Captain Jameway Our fronteer will come back from Gamaquadrom and will bring bible completely re-written.


----------



## adullthud (Jan 22, 2004)

Slateman said:


> Africa poos are the sign , don't you know anything?
> And not ET but Captain Jameway Our fronteer will come back from Gamaquadrom and will bring bible completely re-written.



I think some people need to go to bed a little earlier.


----------



## adullthud (Jan 22, 2004)

A fluke. No, evolutionary trial and error.


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

adullthud said:


> A fluke. No, evolutionary trial and error.



but on a universal scale? This incredible planet, the only one among trillions? why not similar "evolution" elsewhere ? fluke?


----------



## luke (Jan 22, 2004)

i just think that every one should look at absoultly every thing there is to look at before they say they have an answer and i will love to meet the person who thinks they have done that!!!!


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

Didnt you write that before luke? :lol:


----------



## luke (Jan 22, 2004)

for some reason i thought i should write it again :wink:


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

:lol: OK :lol:


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2004)

Ok well, I do practise a religion but I'll start from the top.

Wattso~ Christ/God/Holy Spirit idea has too many holes in it for me. It contradicts it's self continually. Christ himself taught us to hate as well as to love and to be intolerant of those he said were wrong as well as tolerant of those he said were right. 

African~ Monotheistic = one god, Pantheistic = removed from what he has created eg: the potter is not part of his creation, the pot, but rather completly separate. Mainstream = those which are readily accepted as the "norm". 
My religion, I have more than one god/goddess, he/she/they are panentheistic (a part of their creation) and not mainstream/readily accepted.

Wattso~ I find there are to many "flukes" in this world for it to be coincidense. I have had to many "encounters" for there to be nothing out there.

Luke~ I have looked at A LOT of different religions/faiths and I have found the one that works for me. Neither myself nor my religion claim to be the one true way to salvation (another common characteristic of monotheistic/pantheistic religions). I dont even believe in salvation. So I dont claim I have the answer for you. But I do have the answer for me.


----------



## luke (Jan 22, 2004)

amy so dos it bother you that you just may be your waisting your time as neither your self or your religion claim to be the one??

sorry had to say it .. :wink:


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2004)

Luke~ Not at all. My religion is all embracing and I believe that when it all boils down to the basics, all religions are the same, we simply go about practising them in differing ways. 

I am not bothered that my religion claims to be one. It is infact one of the things that draws me to it. I was protestant. Went to a Catholic school. It was the fact that the Christian perspective is such that a follower is so removed from their god that pushed me away (along with the nuns constantly telling me I would go to hell) But because of that, I began to search out other religions and I came across mine. It fits me as well as my own skin.


----------



## luke (Jan 22, 2004)

i admire your passion........


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

Christ himself taught us to hate as well as to love and to be intolerant of those he said were wrong as well as tolerant of those he said were right. 
~Amy

He did? .........I may have to re-read the new testament.....

Wattso~ I find there are to many "flukes" in this world for it to be coincidense. I have had to many "encounters" for there to be nothing out there. 
~Amy

Now you've really got me intrigued........encounters??????


----------



## Eggy (Jan 22, 2004)

> but on a universal scale? This incredible planet, the only one among trillions? why not similar "evolution" elsewhere ? fluke?


Wattso, how can you make a statement like that when we know so little about the planets on our own doorstep let alone those elsewhere of which we know nothing


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

Eggy, it wasnt a statement so much as a question. what are your thoughts? 

Edit/add~ I might point out that christianity beleives man [and this world?] are the very pinnacle of creation, they also beleive the earth was created 6ooo yrs ago. LOL [I dont think man is "the pinnacle" of evolution, just unique evolution [which is where my interest in the rights of other species comes in, but thats fodder for another thread!] 
I beleive this world and everything on it, including us is not unique in the universe, its almost absurd to beleive otherwise even without evidence of little green men! hence, that question above, how can earth be such a fluke?


----------



## luke (Jan 22, 2004)

maybe where just microscopic organisims inside some really big thingamibob thats inside another really big thingamabob and so forth and so on.
do microscopic organisms notice us when we walk past?? :shock: 

this is not my belive but its funny to think about :idea:


----------



## Parko (Jan 22, 2004)

I hope the Earth and everything on it is unique because imagine millions of Professors throughout an infinite universe....... the dribble would be endless :lol: (just teasing professor)


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

luke said:


> maybe where just microscopic organisims inside some really big thingamibob thats inside another really big thingamabob and so forth and so on.
> do microscopic organisms notice us when we walk past?? :shock:
> 
> this is not my belive but its funny to think about :idea:



The same thought has crossed my mind luke. Imagine those images from hubble of distant parts of the universe are on a much larger scale, the same as cells/molecules under a microscope, and do infitesimal beings look out into their "space" and see "stars and worlds" which are microscopic parts of us. They could not comprehend us as a single being.
perhaps thats why we dont comprehend "GOD" ???  Then take this concept to infinity in either direction...............makes for awesome imaginings huh!


----------



## luke (Jan 22, 2004)

and to me its oddly the most convincing but 
THE TRUTH IS (still) OUT THERE..
8)


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

Parko said:


> I hope the Earth and everything on it is unique because imagine millions of Professors throughout an infinite universe....... the dribble would be endless :lol: (just teasing professor)



Thats an interesting concept too Parko. For every choice we make do we also make a different choice in a parralel existance? There would be literally infinite professors  If you consider the physical universe as infinite then everything imagined exist somewhere simply because its been brought to existance[or its idea] by imagination. I love this stuff, it allows the mind to run free!


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2004)

Luke~ Thankyou. 

Wattso~ I dont mean to try to "convert" you or dispell you theories but I will back up my ealier claims.

Jesus tells us to honour our father and mother (Matthew 15:4) but if we want to be his disciple we must hate them (Luke 14:26)

Jesus says that everyone who asks recieves and everyone who seeks will find (Matthew 7:8-11) Yet he also says few will be saved, even when they try (Matthew 7:14-23, Luke 13:24, John 12:40)

Hatred is permitted, even demanded (Luke 14:26) but is simultaneously not permitted (1 John 3:15)

*Pagans & Christians, Gus DiZerega, Ph.D., Llewellyn World Wide.

There are more but these relate specifically to my statements.

About my encounters, I dont mean little green men, I mean with my god/goddess/diety. But I dont need to go into them.


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

Whoa Amy!  I dont seem to able to find the family bible, it dont get much use I can tell ya! 
but as others have pointed out, its the worlds most self contraditory book! lol Think it boils down to interpretation.[Then theres the fact that theres no proof as such that the man really existed plus the fact it was written well after his "death" and re-interprated many times over the millenia anyway, if he ever lived, who knows what he really said, maybe like brian, he just told em all to F### off! lol] About your "encounters", I know you didnt mean L.G.M and i wasnt mocking you, I really am interested in what you experienced. I dont advise posting here of course, but if you cared to share them with a genuinly interested party who will keep his mouth shut, you could pm me.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2004)

Wattso~ It is also the highest selling book in the world. And I know you wern't mocking me, but as you have suggested, I dont want to post them here to be pulled apart/ridiculed


----------



## luke (Jan 22, 2004)

The author of the bible was really the worlds first politician wasnt he ?! :lol:


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

Wattso~ It is also the highest selling book in the world

yeah, I wish I'd written it, eat ya heart out Stephen King!! 

Btw came across an article the other day about someone who has or intends to "Australianise" the bible! :shock: Mary is described as a "sheila" for instance. You can tell the person isnt an aussie! lol :lol:


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2004)

Luke~ If you want to look at it like that, then yeah your right lol.

Wattso~ It wont hit the shelves, too many people including the pope will make their voices heard. But if hey're going to Australianise it, can we americanise it aswell? That could be interesting!


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

Lol, yeah I think the general gist was re-writing it to modernise it, perhaps they did intent different nationalities? imagine broad english............ "Then the gov rocked up with a few kippers and a crust and fed 7000 codgers in the park, didnt he?" etc LMAO


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2004)

ROTFL. I personally dont think they'll ever re-write it. Too much controversy. On the other hand.....care to make it a dual project? Could be fun lol! :twisted:


----------



## luke (Jan 22, 2004)

back to page 5
amy-(But it seems to me, from my interpretation of your posts that you are talking about monotheistic, pantheistic mainstream religions)
i was talking about choice in generale at the end of the day at the very basis of what ever choice you made in what ever situation how much of that thourght is trully yours...


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

Think we'd have to paint the poor old serpente in a kinder light!


----------



## wattso (Jan 22, 2004)

here it is...............

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3004112.stm


----------



## luke (Jan 22, 2004)

oh no more $$$ for the needie i guess
sound s pritty funny but


----------



## wattso (Jan 25, 2004)

luke said:


> oh no more $$$ for the needie i guess
> sound s pritty funny but



huh??????????????????????????????


----------

