The people have spoken...

[Webmaster]

~ reopened ~

feel free to dicuss the topic openminded and cool headed. BUT if i read any form of bias, racial, religios or whatever, i close it again.

[Webmaster]

and anguilles2 position is the majority in europe. it is far beyond the point who is guilty of all the bad things. solutions must be the target now. solutions everyone can live with. so that there is no need for violence.

[Lord Elric]

no the point is never who is guilty. The point is that some of the people live in countrie with many ethnic groups that cannot be described as a majority or a minority in the country. I bet that no one meant anything violent, but in the southern and the eastern parts of europe the things ae often on the edge of the knife. The balance is delicate and most of the time the situation is like a monkey playng with a handgranade in an ammo-store. :)

[Sir Turylon]

It really is a shame when two different cultures cannot live peacefully together. As a well versed student of my own nation's history, and all of the problems we've face; it's become apparent that some situations can never be fully neautralized without bloodshed. Does this make me a war monger? I hope not. The history of mankind has never known a time where peace was prevalent for a long period of time. Although we assume that mankind is able to live completely peaceful through our own good graces, we miss a basic theory.

If mankind is nothing more than an evolved ape, we could then look to the natural world and see that there can never be a ecosystem where predators and prey live in peace. The natural world is perilous, even more so than our own "civilizations." In mankinds efforts to figure out two fundemental quesitons, why are we here and can there be worldwide peace, we tend to overlook groups that manage a peaceful existence. Where am I going with this? One common unifying trait found in every culture is the willingness of each person to do good. Each religion emphasizes that doing good is better than doing evil. Religion is very much a double edged sowrd though. You can use it for both good and evil, as is the case with everything else in this world. The problem comes when people try to deny that there is good and evil. Right and wrong. Night and day. If we abandone the concept of right and wrong, we can no longer discern if something is beneficial or harmful. That is the great conundrum which faced the USA during the 1800s. Is slavery good or evil? Should we destroy it, or live with it and not condemn it as wrong? Thankfully, even the CSA began to see that slavery was wrong. (hence why they freed the slaves before Lincoln)

As it comes down to finding "peace in our time," if I may borrow a term from Wilson, it is imperative to understand what is right and what is wrong to do. Is it wrong for one group to opress another group? It never has been since we abandoned the concept of empires. Is it right for a group to create a buffer zone with an openly hostile nation? Sure, that's why we haven't filled in the Atlantic ocean yet. (j/k) Who is to say what is right and wrong though? Can the UN determine that? I doubt that after the upheavel it has suffered from the corruption scandels. Can the EU determine that? Doubtfully, since each nation will side with what is best for themselves. Can the US do it? I do not think so, or we might lose our wine imports. ;) What can be done to find peace? Probably nothing at the moment. The death of Yasser Arrafat does provide an opening for peace talks again. So some good might come form this. (God rest his soul) The struggle could boil over into another war. Perhaps even a second war of survival for both sides.

How can peace be achieved though? I hate to say it, but nobody can really know. We can try treaties and agreements, but these are easily broken. (something KoH can teach you, as well as the history of Europe and the failings of organizations like the League of Nations) In the end, the remaining single factor that could unite us is the belief that we are not all powerful. When you conceed that we are not angels, and thus need governments to help us, the beginnings of peace might come forth. The greatest uniting force this world has ever seen is religion. It is also one of the most fought against forces. Ask yourself, why do people fight to remove religion? What do they fear from it?

food for thought.

*edit* Correction @ putting a comment knightly sword said to Lurker. sorry. :cheers:
tag that on my Irish temper, which sometimes gets the better of my German logic and Swiss calmness.

[lurking horror]

*edit* Correction @ putting a comment knightly sword said to Lurker. sorry.
tag that on my Irish temper, which sometimes gets the better of my German logic and Swiss calmness.

It's not a problem. I've certainly made worse errors on mesage boards. And you were faced with arguments coming from multiple fronts. If I were in your shoes I'm certain I would have made similar (and possibly worse) errors. And please let me extend my apolgies for my own harsh words. Sorry.

:cheers:

[Sir Turylon]

:cheers: <--- the great equalizer

Irish beer... of course.

[Lord Elric]

Send a pint-o-ale this way :)

[the knightly sword]

well sorry if i offended anybody i was just two tired and head less those days .



cheers :cheers: :cheers:


well i think politics have repeated it
self but now its the break of . we have to promise to not make this mistake again by any politics again :) :) :).

[Noldy]

@Webmaster: Why may religion not be discussed here? Why may we not try and convert others? Theres absolutely no problem in that, as long as you keep it cool, and dont go offending others.

[Elvain]

"Repent, repent, for the judgement day is near!" :cheers:
Anonymous KoH Cleric

Guys, you're still arguing here? Cool! Who has won? :silly:when two sides argue without tryinh to understand the other, this argue never ends and will have no winner.

It has only loosers: truth(which is so many times manipulated) and both sides of issue(unable to understand the other side)

but to stand on their side. How can somebody, who got killed some family member try to understand his killer. Only Jesus(I mean the character from a book called New Testament, written in 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.), and people like he, are able to do so.

But nothing is sure... and it's f***ing hard to live with it...but it's as it is.

EDIT:
oooooohhh sorry. I missed this was cloed and re-opened again. So sorry. Take this just as opinion of an irregular visitor of this forum, who is unable to read all those words.

Funy thing: religions (as well as nowadays very popular atheism) were "made" to find out the truth and the right path to love and good life. Where have they lead to? Issues, Arguments, Wars, people being kiled and far more people being closeminded and unable to understand each other. Very sad paradox, don't ya think?

Nothing should be holy and untouchably right (like this sentence:)) even your next step... Are you sure that what you are reading now really exists? I am not :)

[Webmaster]

@Webmaster: Why may religion not be discussed here? Why may we not try and convert others? Theres absolutely no problem in that, as long as you keep it cool, and dont go offending others.

you can discuss everything here, but i don't like bashing or flaming. as long as people respect each other and there opinions/attidutes everything is fine !!! and i am the last to interfere the flow of freespeech.

[Sir Turylon]

sad that you think religion has only brought death, destruction, and close-mindedness.

I'd like to see what you would say about how much death, desturcttion and turmoil has come from cultures who believe man can be a god. (here's a hint: communism, socialism, nationalistic socialism, tyranny, empirical rule... just a few...go add them up. might be surprised)

when two sides argue without tryinh to understand the other, this argue never ends and will have no winner.

It has only loosers: truth(which is so many times manipulated) and both sides of issue(unable to understand the other side)

So, if you get into any discussion, you are a loser. :nono:

written in 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.
actually, no. it was written in the 1st century AD. As is confirmed by the travels of Paul. ~50-60 AD. The four gospels were written between 50-70 AD, as is confirmed by the church leaders in the 2nd and 3rd century.

I'd like you to state evidence to backup your claim it wasn't written until the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.

Roman history confirms the writings as before Nero, but after Herod. IE.. the times described would be from 0 AD through 60 AD.

[Stefan]

when two sides argue without tryinh to understand the other, this argue never ends and will have no winner.

It has only loosers: truth(which is so many times manipulated) and both sides of issue(unable to understand the other side)

but to stand on their side. How can somebody, who got killed some family member try to understand his killer. Only Jesus(I mean the character from a book called New Testament, written in 2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.), and people like he, are able to do so.

But nothing is sure... and it's f***ing hard to live with it...but it's as it is.

EDIT:
oooooohhh sorry. I missed this was cloed and re-opened again. So sorry. Take this just as opinion of an irregular visitor of this forum, who is unable to read all those words.

Funy thing: religions (as well as nowadays very popular atheism) were "made" to find out the truth and the right path to love and good life. Where have they lead to? Issues, Arguments, Wars, people being kiled and far more people being closeminded and unable to understand each other. Very sad paradox, don't ya think?

Nothing should be holy and untouchably right (like this sentence:)) even your next step... Are you sure that what you are reading now really exists? I am not :)


The new testament is a collection of books, lettters and the like written over a period of 70 years i believe. It is more then just 1 book written by 1 person.

[Elvain]

Is it some difference, if the New testament was written 40 or 140 years after Jesuses death? Is it really that important that it was written by one or 4 or more authors? They still are AUTHORS of the book, so it is like Illias and Odyssea. Just a book written by somebody to tell something. So in other words: fiction.
I can imagine the next question: what are books of science, "holy books" of today?
Fictions, of course. They use much more proofs than the Bible (of course), but still they are based on some main idea what they are describing and this idea may be wrong, so possible they are same fiction as Illias or any novell or any poem...

but still, I am sorry that I gave you bad datation of Bible. I messed it up with apocryphes *hopes that used right spelling :)*sad that you think religion has only brought death, destruction, and close-mindedness. of course not. They gave something very useful for human societies: order, moral system of values. But most of them then just insisted on that one-the-only-right-system and bacame close-minded. They gave also insurance for many things, what is also very important. But to be sure doesn't mean to be right! (I am not sure I am right!)

I'd like to see what you would say about how much death, desturcttion and turmoil has come from cultures who believe man can be a god. (here's a hint: communism, socialism, nationalistic socialism, tyranny, empirical rule... just a few...go add them up. might be surprised)you described it very well. Those who believed man can be a god. So they were religions without sacral god, religions with lay god, where the god was replaced by some idea. But still religions!

Of course man is not a god! That's why gods were made-up, to be some kind of ideal.

So, if you get into any discussion, you are a loser. :nono:Yes, I am(personally I, not everybody) I described it badly , I might have written "...not trying to understand each other and not able to understand..."
Mostly i try, but am not able to understand. But some people can, so they are not loosers. Unfortunately they are not very numerous.
Most of people (like you and me) are just repeating their ideas, improving them a little (sometimes but not always), but still they mainly oppose to the other idea, trying or not to understand, but not understanding it. I don't say it is easy, it is very hard. It's hard not to lose.


actually, no. it was written in the 1st century AD. As is confirmed by the travels of Paul. ~50-60 AD. The four gospels were written between 50-70 AD, as is confirmed by the church leaders in the 2nd and 3rd century.

I'd like you to state evidence to backup your claim it wasn't written until the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD.

Roman history confirms the writings as before Nero, but after Herod. IE.. the times described would be from 0 AD through 60 AD.
Sorry, I don't study history of the Bible as carefully as I should. What I remember wsa the confirmation caused by many apocryphes written in that time (between 50-200 AD). Fact is that the confirmation was not to confirm the truth, but to tell the lie from what was thought to be true. Some authors were closer to truth(officially Matthias, Mark, Lucas and John), some further, but none of them was absolutely right, it is just interpretation (AFAIK). AFAIK it was discussed many times that some of Gospels are more right than others, it is discussed if "the gospel of Thomas" was right or not. It haven't been confirmed by those who really knew how it was, but by those who had authority to do so, to decide. Can we be sure that only the right ones were taken to the New Testament?

But sorry, I don't have the knowledge to discuss now what theologues argue for centuries

PS: guess where we are now? we discuss religious issues. I guess we shouldn't. I give my opponents right to have the last word. I promisse I won't answer HERE. But maybe via PM, if I would be asked. (honestly, I don't feel wise and educated enough to discuss isues of religion."philosophy" maybe, but not religion)

[Stefan]

Is it some difference, if the New testament was written 40 or 140 years after Jesuses death? Is it really that important that it was written by one or 4 or more authors? They still are AUTHORS of the book, so it is like Illias and Odyssea. Just a book written by somebody to tell something. So in other words: fiction.
I can imagine the next question: what are books of science, "holy books" of today?
Fictions, of course. They use much more proofs than the Bible (of course), but still they are based on some main idea what they are describing and this idea may be wrong, so possible they are same fiction as Illias or any novell or any poem...

but still, I am sorry that I gave you bad datation of Bible. I messed it up with apocryphes *hopes that used right spelling :)*of course not. They gave something very useful for human societies: order, moral system of values. But most of them then just insisted on that one-the-only-right-system and bacame close-minded. They gave also insurance for many things, what is also very important. But to be sure doesn't mean to be right! (I am not sure I am right!)

you described it very well. Those who believed man can be a god. So they were religions without sacral god, religions with lay god, where the god was replaced by some idea. But still religions!

Of course man is not a god! That's why gods were made-up, to be some kind of ideal.

Yes, I am(personally I, not everybody) I described it badly , I might have written "...not trying to understand each other and not able to understand..."
Mostly i try, but am not able to understand. But some people can, so they are not loosers. Unfortunately they are not very numerous.
Most of people (like you and me) are just repeating their ideas, improving them a little (sometimes but not always), but still they mainly oppose to the other idea, trying or not to understand, but not understanding it. I don't say it is easy, it is very hard. It's hard not to lose.



Sorry, I don't study history of the Bible as carefully as I should. What I remember wsa the confirmation caused by many apocryphes written in that time (between 50-200 AD). Fact is that the confirmation was not to confirm the truth, but to tell the lie from what was thought to be true. Some authors were closer to truth(officially Matthias, Mark, Lucas and John), some further, but none of them was absolutely right, it is just interpretation (AFAIK). AFAIK it was discussed many times that some of Gospels are more right than others, it is discussed if "the gospel of Thomas" was right or not. It haven't been confirmed by those who really knew how it was, but by those who had authority to do so, to decide. Can we be sure that only the right ones were taken to the New Testament?

But sorry, I don't have the knowledge to discuss now what theologues argue for centuries

PS: guess where we are now? we discuss religious issues. I guess we shouldn't. I give my opponents right to have the last word. I promisse I won't answer HERE. But maybe via PM, if I would be asked. (honestly, I don't feel wise and educated enough to discuss isues of religion."philosophy" maybe, but not religion)


So then people like Napolean are also fictional characters? books have been written about Napolean by plenty of various authors, are they simply writing about a fictional character? Where do we draw the line between what we know and what we think we know? puzziling indeed.

[the knightly sword]

well i dont think god did religions so humans had reasons to slaughter each other . neither do think the lord wants uss to argue and fight about religions . what i think god made religions for was because he wanned uss to know that there is a creator how loves his creations deeply indeed.

[Sir Turylon]

Well... actually.. Science books are more like reference books. They are just repititious discourses of previously obtained and expanded knowledge. Theoretical sciences are more ficiton than fact since they are not provable. The Holy Bible is actually a collection of science, history, philosophy, self-help, prophecy, art, anthropology, and music. It is also the most proven document in history. (cannot include the proofs due to time and space constaints.)

Just a quick question. Do you consider yourself to be an agnostic?

[Hector]

''It is also the most proven document in history''

every people has its own opinions on this

[Elvain]

Turie, Stefi, check your PM box...

[Sir Turylon]

''It is also the most proven document in history''

every people has its own opinions on this

lemme rephrase that. I think it was garbled in translation. The Holy Bible has standed the test of time, for millenia. From the time of Egypt to modern days, the scriptures have stood the test of pundits and opponents far greater than any other. The second longest running text would be the Hammurabi Code, then Egyptian documents. etc.
Also, Creationism has been more strongly proven (think as in mathematical proof, where you provide evidence of your theory) then evolutionism. Don't believe it? try googling for Intelligent Design. While evolution is the only form of beginning that is taught, it is also the most unproven theory in any form of science. (we have more evidence on relativity than evolution... for example)