Hi

[Guest guest]

Hi Larry, welcome to the group. What subjects interest you?

I find that I learn more here when I read posts by members who are

studied in their field of interest. I may have never looked at some

things if it were not for them and the details they provide.

Kim

[Guest guest]

sorry I am noone . My interests are government and how it destroys the indiviual .And christianity, and the white lie that it has blinded alot of the world with for 2000 years. ....LarryKim <6emini@...> wrote: Hi Larry, welcome to the group. What subjects interest you?I find that I learn more here when I read posts by members who arestudied in their field of interest. I may have never looked at somethings if it were not for them and the details they

provide.Kim

Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Travel.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/24/2007 9:59:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

I do not believe you are no one and I think that you will find myself orother members interested in points you have on these subjects. I thinkthat the larger an entity becomes, such as the government in the USA,the harder it becomes for it not to be self serving. It's size lendsitself to corruption, for the individuals whom we've elected no longergather together to work for their constituants. The main goal afterachieving office is to become more powerful and if they believe they cando so by being immoral, well that is just what they will do.

This is the perennial problem with governments. You can look back as far as Rome and probably the Egyptians before them and see it.

What people fail to realize is that government is essentially a living entity. Government judges its power not by the freedom of the people or a robust economy, but by the size of its budget, the number of bureaucrats and the number of clients beholden to it. As such, it does its best to constantly expand all of these.

The budget is interesting. many governments, the US in particular, slowly ramps up the size of the budget. It gets away with this in two primary ways. First, it creates a need for a service or some kind of monitoring. An example is the many, redundant environmental and wildlife agencies. Many such agencies exist under many different departments and such, no telling just how many there are. While these are necessary functions, nature management should all be under Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife management, with pollution functions all under the EPA. Instead, by having all these little agencies, staff and head quarters are duplicated, draining funds on paper pushers that could go to less of them and more field agents.

The second is to create a need. An example of that are the welfare programs. When President launched the Great Society, few people signed up for the welfare programs. So, they had to advertise and try to recruit people to go on the dole. Their sales pitch was that these programs were a "right" and for life. They did manage to drum up recruits then. Now, normal folks would think that people not wanting or needing welfare would be a good thing. But to government, the more people on the rolls meant more funding, more bureaucrats, and thus more prestige in the idiocy of the government. Even as the economy picked up, in many places welfare and food stamp agencies panicked because numbers were dropping and they again went to advertising to shore up numbers and more importantly, their funding.

Most amusingly, and very typical of Western governments, much is made of savings by cutting the military. After the Civil War in America, the Yankee government cut funding so quickly that many officers and soldiers had to pay their own way home. The Federal army went from several million to a few 10's of thousands in months, barely enough to police the borders. This was still so bad that when the Spanish American war brewed up 30 years later, that private volunteer units had to be raised, like the Rough Riders, firearms had to be donated by wealthy citizens and logistical support was non existent. To go merely from Florida to Cuba, cattle boats had to be purchased and refitted to carrying troops. WWI saw us caught off guard again with a rapid expansion of the army that was filled mainly with slackers. Poor training resulted in vast numbers of dead. Again, after the war, the numbers were gutted and the pols patted themselves on the backs. Come WWII, we faced the Japanese with 1/3 the number of carriers they had, defective torpedoes and technically inferior planes and naval tactics that resulted in high losses in gun to gun battles. After the war, yet again, the most powerful military in the world was gutted. A few years later in Korea, units were at half strength or less, most of the competent and experienced troops having been cashiered out of the service, and equipment was still WWII standard and much obsolete.

I think the only reason the military was kept up under Reagan was the knowledge that we could bankrupt the Soviet Union without having to actually fight them. It worked. Sadly, under Clinton, the "Peace Dividend" slashed the military by half, while at the same time sending it on more deployments than the previous 3 Presidents combined. I've got a list somewhere, but essentially enough was cut to create the world's 3 most powerful military. If we'd still had half of that, we could have done Iraq properly, including proper rotations for the troops without calling up National Guard.

It is always amusing how they cut the military which is necessary to secure the politicians own domestic ambitions. They never learn that doing so only makes another war more likely. Very hard to convince an enemy to back down from a position of weakness.

Back to the point. Government is like any other living thing: it seeks to grow and expand. Unfortunately, it is more like cancer or fire: it feeds and grows at the expense of the rest of society. All tax in an opportunity cost. That is to say, what people and business pays in taxes is money they can't spend on other things that would actually help the economy. Virtually all money spend in the economy is recycled and used. The government, on the other hand, consumes at least 2 dollars in 3 on paper pushers before anything gets done. Civilian businesses could never survive that kind of mismanagement.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/24/2007 9:59:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

I do not believe you are no one and I think that you will find myself orother members interested in points you have on these subjects. I thinkthat the larger an entity becomes, such as the government in the USA,the harder it becomes for it not to be self serving. It's size lendsitself to corruption, for the individuals whom we've elected no longergather together to work for their constituants. The main goal afterachieving office is to become more powerful and if they believe they cando so by being immoral, well that is just what they will do.

This is the perennial problem with governments. You can look back as far as Rome and probably the Egyptians before them and see it.

What people fail to realize is that government is essentially a living entity. Government judges its power not by the freedom of the people or a robust economy, but by the size of its budget, the number of bureaucrats and the number of clients beholden to it. As such, it does its best to constantly expand all of these.

The budget is interesting. many governments, the US in particular, slowly ramps up the size of the budget. It gets away with this in two primary ways. First, it creates a need for a service or some kind of monitoring. An example is the many, redundant environmental and wildlife agencies. Many such agencies exist under many different departments and such, no telling just how many there are. While these are necessary functions, nature management should all be under Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife management, with pollution functions all under the EPA. Instead, by having all these little agencies, staff and head quarters are duplicated, draining funds on paper pushers that could go to less of them and more field agents.

The second is to create a need. An example of that are the welfare programs. When President launched the Great Society, few people signed up for the welfare programs. So, they had to advertise and try to recruit people to go on the dole. Their sales pitch was that these programs were a "right" and for life. They did manage to drum up recruits then. Now, normal folks would think that people not wanting or needing welfare would be a good thing. But to government, the more people on the rolls meant more funding, more bureaucrats, and thus more prestige in the idiocy of the government. Even as the economy picked up, in many places welfare and food stamp agencies panicked because numbers were dropping and they again went to advertising to shore up numbers and more importantly, their funding.

Most amusingly, and very typical of Western governments, much is made of savings by cutting the military. After the Civil War in America, the Yankee government cut funding so quickly that many officers and soldiers had to pay their own way home. The Federal army went from several million to a few 10's of thousands in months, barely enough to police the borders. This was still so bad that when the Spanish American war brewed up 30 years later, that private volunteer units had to be raised, like the Rough Riders, firearms had to be donated by wealthy citizens and logistical support was non existent. To go merely from Florida to Cuba, cattle boats had to be purchased and refitted to carrying troops. WWI saw us caught off guard again with a rapid expansion of the army that was filled mainly with slackers. Poor training resulted in vast numbers of dead. Again, after the war, the numbers were gutted and the pols patted themselves on the backs. Come WWII, we faced the Japanese with 1/3 the number of carriers they had, defective torpedoes and technically inferior planes and naval tactics that resulted in high losses in gun to gun battles. After the war, yet again, the most powerful military in the world was gutted. A few years later in Korea, units were at half strength or less, most of the competent and experienced troops having been cashiered out of the service, and equipment was still WWII standard and much obsolete.

I think the only reason the military was kept up under Reagan was the knowledge that we could bankrupt the Soviet Union without having to actually fight them. It worked. Sadly, under Clinton, the "Peace Dividend" slashed the military by half, while at the same time sending it on more deployments than the previous 3 Presidents combined. I've got a list somewhere, but essentially enough was cut to create the world's 3 most powerful military. If we'd still had half of that, we could have done Iraq properly, including proper rotations for the troops without calling up National Guard.

It is always amusing how they cut the military which is necessary to secure the politicians own domestic ambitions. They never learn that doing so only makes another war more likely. Very hard to convince an enemy to back down from a position of weakness.

Back to the point. Government is like any other living thing: it seeks to grow and expand. Unfortunately, it is more like cancer or fire: it feeds and grows at the expense of the rest of society. All tax in an opportunity cost. That is to say, what people and business pays in taxes is money they can't spend on other things that would actually help the economy. Virtually all money spend in the economy is recycled and used. The government, on the other hand, consumes at least 2 dollars in 3 on paper pushers before anything gets done. Civilian businesses could never survive that kind of mismanagement.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/24/2007 12:23:01 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

I agree with you 100%.Kim

Thanks.

The only way to control government is to control taxation. That is why the US was set up without a tax code beyond import and export duties. Government was strictly limited in growth and what it could do because of that. It also had to be more careful diplomatically and trade wise because that would affect government incomes.

Today I think this could be done by mandating a flat 10% to 15% tax for the bottom 4 quintiles (the standard division of income etc is a 5 part or quintile system) and 20% to 25% fixed for the top quintile. Quintiles would be used instead of a dollar value because of inflation. Inflation and economic growth push up incomes in dollar value that don't necessarily keep up with purchasing power. There is a thing called the Alternative Minimum Tax which was intended to catch the wealthy who were evading taxes. However, the dollar limit has not been raised and so a growing number of middle class families are being caught by it. Using quintiles would avoid that. Granted there would be a year or so lag in this, but that's ok because the tax would be phased in over a few years, rising a percent or two per year, to reward someone who makes it up there. If they fall from the top quintile, they would automatically get the lower rate and a tax refund if necessary.

Business would also pay a flat rate of around 15% and they would be allowed to write off at a bonus all the book keeping and other regulation the government forces them to do, even if all that result in them paying no taxes at all. Small business, which make up around 90% of business in the US, would also get a break and more write offs.

As for the government itself, spending should be highly regulated. Things like military, courts, diplomatic corps, infrastructure and some regulatory and intelligence agencies and education would be given a fixed percentage of the budget (with a military caveat in that it would have to funded sufficiently to meet a certain levels or troops and equipment). All the rest like welfare, health care, pork, etc. could then be fought over by the pols. Debt would also have a mandatory payment. That would stand at three times the interest payment.

Most importantly, Congress would be forced to use business standard credit accounting, not cash accounting like they do now. That would make it very hard to play their budget games which shift debt years down the road, until they are out of office. There is lots of that and it is going to hurt us. Sure they could play games, but any decent corporate auditor could find it.

All of this would obviate the need for budget restraints and all that, which the pols violate anyway, like they do now. They could ramp up all the debt they want, but the interest payments would get higher and higher and consume more of their discretionary spending ability. Then, if they screamed for higher taxes, people could easily point to debt being the real problem and since the vitals were fully funded, they could tell the pols to take a flying leap.

More power should be stripped from the government by privatizing most of social security. Bush had a good chance, but he blew it. His mistake was to say that people would choose their own stocks. Bad mistake, since the pros have a hard enough time doing that. What he should have done that many other countries do, is to have set up mutual fund type things where money is in private accounts and invested across the market as a whole, not individual stocks. This has been done and works well. Companies could tie in pension plans into these private accounts, putting money into them that would have gone to the pension owned by the company. That would relieve the companies of a lot of book keeping worry and would be fully transportable from job to job.

Standard social security would be maintained for those who really needed it. A program would be set up for indigent elderly, with help from family encouraged. Another could be set up for younger people with disabilities.

Doing this would remove a huge client base from the government. Currently the government commands the loyalty of millions of clients in the SS system and will add millions more over time. If those were private accounts in the main, then the government would have far less power.

Bear in mind also that the federal courts, even the Supreme Court, has ruled that the government is under no obligation to actually pay SS benefits. This is possible because of the pay as you go nature of the system. The SS tax goes into the general fund, not some special lock box, and enough is paid out to cover existing expenses. The government could, however, just up and say it is no longer going to pay certain people or anyone at all, or cut benefits and would be legally correct. Private accounts would not have that problem.

There are a lot of things that could be done that would stabilize the country, but they won't be.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

I do not believe you are no one and I think that you will find myself or

other members interested in points you have on these subjects. I think

that the larger an entity becomes, such as the government in the USA,

the harder it becomes for it not to be self serving. It's size lends

itself to corruption, for the individuals whom we've elected no longer

gather together to work for their constituants. The main goal after

achieving office is to become more powerful and if they believe they can

do so by being immoral, well that is just what they will do. I also see

a reoccuring theme with almost all religous groups, that when the people

become close minded and refuse to allow differences, it only causes

strife among the masses. So many of history's battles are based on

ideologies of faith and zealots who will never see compromise. There

was a time when Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worked together with a

goal of translating literary works and this led to an enlightenment of

the people. Alas, along comes the zealots to ruin what should have

continued but tolerance is not one of man's greatest achievements.

Kim

>

> sorry I am noone . My interests are government and how it destroys the

indiviual .And christianity, and the white lie that it has blinded alot

of the world with for 2000 years. ....Larry

[Guest guest]

" There was a time when Christians, Jews, and Muslims all worked

together with a goal of translating literary works and this led to an

enlightenment of the people. Alas, along comes the zealots to ruin what

should have continued but tolerance is not one of man's greatest

achievements. "

That sort of liberalism resulted in mass-sin. The reason the religions

are divided now, even amongst themselves, is that there are those who

use the teachings and texts to do what they should be doing, and those

that use the teachings and texts to do what they WANT to do, and

sometimes what people WANT to do is not what God wants people to do

(according to teachings and text anyway).

So there is division now in the religious community.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

> That sort of liberalism resulted in mass-sin. The reason the religions > are divided now, even amongst themselves, is that there are those who > use the teachings and texts to do what they should be doing, and those > that use the teachings and texts to do what they WANT to do, and > sometimes what people WANT to do is not what God wants people to do > (according to teachings and text anyway).> So there is division now in the religious community.

I agree that the interpretation of the religious text differs from group to group, person to person. There will always be disagreements on how strictly the rules should be carried out and I think that problems seem to arise when one group uses force to see that THEIR way is the only way being practiced. Mass sin from liberalism, exchange of information? How so?

Do those who believe in Christ deserve to die because they do not practice the muslim beliefs? Not all who read the Koran believe those who do not should die but there are those who do. Which group is correct? Those willing to sacrifice themselves and become martyrs would say they have the ONE correct way. That is the way they have interpreted the text. I do not agree but who is to say I am right? How do Christains feel about Jews when they believe Christ has not come? Which text is that what we should follow, the Koran, the Bible, or the Torah?

Really, I do not think one must consult religion to live a moral life. I'm not against religion at all, I just think when people take religious texts to extremes it causes more harm than good. I also think that if people were tolerent of others belief's we could work on moral similarities of the teachings rather than hate.

This is a summary of what I watched last night.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/

Muslim Spain (711-1492)

By BBC Team

Introduction

Islamic Spain (711-1492)

The Court of the Lions, Alhambra, Spain

Islamic Spain was a multi-cultural mix of the people of three great monotheistic religions: Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Although Christians and Jews lived under restrictions, for much of the time the three groups managed to get along together, and to some extent, to benefit from the presence of each other.

It brought a degree of civilisation to Europe that matched the heights of the Roman Empire and the Italian Renaissance.

Outline

In 711 Muslim forces invaded and in seven years conquered the Iberian peninsula.

It became one of the great Muslim civilisations; reaching its summit with the Umayyad caliphate of Cordovain the tenth century.

Muslim rule declined after that and ended in 1492 when Granada was conquered.

The heartland of Muslim rule was Southern Spain or Andulusia.

Periods

Muslim Spain was not a single period, but a succession of different rules.

The Dependent Emirate (711-756) The Independent Emirate (756-929) The Caliphate (929-1031) The Almoravid Era (1031-1130) Decline (1130-1492)

Conquest

The conquest

The traditional story is that in the year 711, an oppressed Christian chief, n, went to Musa ibn Nusair, the governor of North Africa, with a plea for help against the tyrannical Visigoth ruler of Spain, Roderick.

Musa responded by sending the young general Tariq bin Ziyad with an army of 7000 troops. The name Gibraltar is derived from Jabal At-Tariq which is Arabic for 'Rock of Tariq' named after the place where the Muslim army landed.

The story of the appeal for help is not universally accepted. There is no doubt that Tariq invaded Spain, but the reason for it may have more to do with the Muslim drive to enlarge their territory.

The Muslim army defeated the Visigoth army easily, and Roderick was killed in battle.

After the first victory, the Muslims conquered most of Spain and Portugal with little difficulty, and in fact with little opposition. By 720 Spain was largely under Muslim (or Moorish, as it was called) control.

Reasons

One reason for the rapid Muslim success was the generous surrender terms that they offered the people, which contrasted with the harsh conditions imposed by the previous Visigoth rulers.

The ruling Islamic forces were made up of different nationalities, and many of the forces were converts with uncertain motivation, so the establishment of a coherent Muslim state was not easy.

Andalusia

The heartland of Muslim rule was Southern Spain or Andulusia. The name Andalusia comes from the term Al-Andalus used by the Arabs, derived from the Vandals who had been settled in the region.

A Golden Age

Stability

Stability in Muslim Spain came with the establishment of the Andalusian Umayyad dynasty, which lasted from 756 to 1031.

The credit goes to Amir Abd al-Rahman, who founded the Emirate of Cordoba, and was able to get the various different Muslim groups who had conquered Spain to pull together in ruling it.

The Golden Age

The Muslim period in Spain is often described as a 'golden age' of learning where libraries, colleges, public baths were established and literature, poetry and architecture flourished. Both Muslims and non-Muslims made major contributions to this flowering of culture.

A Golden Age of religious tolerance?

Islamic Spain is sometimes described as a 'golden age' of religious and ethnic tolerance and interfaith harmony between Muslims, Christians and Jews.

Some historians believe this idea of a golden age is false and might lead modern readers to believe, wrongly, that Muslim Spain was tolerant by the standards of 21st century Britain.

The true position is more complicated. The distinguished historian Bernard wrote that the status of non-Muslims in Islamic Spain was a sort of second-class citizenship but he went on to say:

Second-class citizenship, though second class, is a kind of citizenship. It involves some rights, though not all, and is surely better than no rights at all...

....A recognized status, albeit one of inferiority to the dominant group, which is established by law, recognized by tradition, and confirmed by popular assent, is not to be despised.

Life for non-Muslims in Islamic Spain

Jews and Christians did retain some freedom under Muslim rule, providing they obeyed certain rules. Although these rules would now be considered completely unacceptable, they were not much of a burden by the standards of the time, and in many ways the non-Muslims of Islamic Spain (at least before 1050) were treated better than conquered peoples might have expected during that period of history.

they were not forced to live in ghettoes or other special locations they were not slaves they were not prevented from following their faith they were not forced to convert or die under Muslim rule they were not banned from any particular ways of earning a living; they often took on jobs shunned by Muslims;

these included unpleasant work such as tanning and butchery but also pleasant jobs such as banking and dealing in gold and silver

they could work in the civil service of the Islamic rulers Jews and Christians were able to contribute to society and culture

The alternative view to the Golden Age of Tolerance is that Jews and Christians were severely restricted in Muslim Spain, by being forced to live in a state of 'dhimmitude'. (A dhimmi is a non-Muslim living in an Islamic state who is not a slave, but does not have the same rights as a Muslim living in the same state.)

In Islamic Spain, Jews and Christians were tolerated if they:

acknowledged Islamic superiority accepted Islamic power paid tribute (i.e. paid an additional tax) to the Muslim rulers and sometimes paid higher rates of other taxes avoided blasphemy did not try to convert Muslims complied with the rules laid down by the authorities. These included:

restrictions on clothing and the need to wear a special badge restrictions on building synagogues and churches not allowed to carry weapons could not receive an inheritance from a Muslim could not bequeath anything to a Muslim could not own a Muslim slave a dhimmi man could not marry a Muslim woman (but the reverse was acceptable) a dhimmi could not give evidence in an Islamic court dhimmis would get lower compensation than Muslims for the same injury

At times there were restrictions on practicing one's faith too obviously. Bell-ringing or chanting too loudly were frowned on and public processions were restricted.

Many Christians in Spain assimilated parts of the Muslim culture. Some learned Arabic, some adopted the same clothes as their rulers (some Christian women even started wearing the veil); some took Arabic names. Christians who did this were known as Mozarabs.

The Muslim rulers didn't give their non-Muslim subjects equal status; as Bat Ye'or has stated, the non-Muslims came definitely at the bottom of society.

Society was sharply divided along ethnic and religious lines, with the Arab tribes at the top of the hierarchy, followed by the Berbers who were never recognized as equals, despite their Islamization; lower in the scale came the mullawadun converts and, at the very bottom, the dhimmi Christians and Jews.

The Muslims did not explicitly hate or persecute the non-Muslims. As Bernard puts it:

in contrast to Christian anti-Semitism, the Muslim attitude toward non-Muslims is one not of hate or fear or envy but simply of contempt

An example of this contempt is found in this 12th century ruling:

A Muslim must not massage a Jew or a Christian nor throw away his refuse nor clean his latrines. The Jew and the Christian are better fitted for such trades, since they are the trades of those who are vile.

Why were non-Muslims tolerated in Islamic Spain?

There were several reasons why the Muslim rulers tolerated rival faiths:

Judaism and Christianity were monotheistic faiths, so arguably their members were worshipping the same God

despite having some wayward beliefs and practices, such as the failure to accept the significance of Muhammad and the Qur'an

The Christians outnumbered the Muslims

so mass conversion or mass execution was not practical outlawing or controlling the beliefs of so many people would have been massively expensive

Bringing non-Muslims into government provided the rulers with administrators

who were loyal (because not attached to any of the various Muslim groups) who could be easily disciplined or removed if the need arose. (One Emir went so far as to have a Christian as the head of his bodyguard.)

Passages in the Qur'an said that Christians and Jews should be tolerated if they obeyed certain rules

Oppression in later Islamic Spain

Not all the Muslim rulers of Spain were tolerant. Almanzor looted churches and imposed strict restrictions.

The position of non-Muslims in Spain deteriorated substantially from the middle of the 11th century as the rulers became more strict and Islam came under greater pressure from outside.

Christians were not allowed taller houses than Muslims, could not employ Muslim servants, and had to give way to Muslims on the street.

Christians could not display any sign of their faith outside, not even carrying a Bible. There were persecutions and executions.

One notorious event was a pogrom in Granada in 1066, and this was followed by further violence and discrimination as the Islamic empire itself came under pressure.

As the Islamic empire declined, and more territory was taken back by Christian rulers, Muslims in Christian areas found themselves facing similar restrictions to those they had formerly imposed on others.

But, on the whole, the lot of minority faith groups was to become worse after Islam was replaced in Spain by Christianity.

The Court of the Lions, Alhambra, Spain

There were also cultural alliances, particularly in the architecture - the 12 lions in the court of Alhambra are heralds of Christian influences.

The mosque at Cordoba, now converted to a cathedral is still, somewhat ironically, known as La Mezquita or literally, the mosque.

The mosque was begun at the end of the 8th century by the Ummayyad prince Abd al Rahman ibn Muawiyah.

Under the reign of Abd al Rahman III (r. 912-961) Spanish Islam reached its greatest power as every May campaigns were launched towards the Christian frontier, this was also the cultural peak of Islamic civilisation in Spain.

Cordoba

Cordoba

Mezquita mosque in Cordoba

In the 10th century, Cordoba, the capital of Umayyad Spain, was unrivalled in both East and the West for its wealth and civilisation. One author wrote about Cordoba:

there were half a million inhabitants, living in 113,000 houses. There were 700 mosques and 300 public baths spread throughout the city and its twenty-one suburbs. The streets were paved and lit...There were bookshops and more than seventy libraries.

Muslim scholars served as a major link in bringing Greek philosophy, of which the Muslims had previously been the main custodians, to Western Europe.

There were interchanges and alliances between Muslim and Christian rulers such as the legendary Spanish warrior El-Cid, who fought both against and alongside Muslims.

Decline and fall

Decline and fall

Toledo fell to Christianity in 1085

The collapse of Islamic rule in Spain was due not only to increasing aggression on the part of Christian states, but to divisions among the Muslim rulers. The rot came from both the centre and the extremities.

Early in the eleventh century, the single Islamic Caliphate had shattered into a score of small kingdoms, ripe for picking-off. The first big Islamic centre to fall to Christianity was Toledo in 1085.

The Muslims replied with forces from Africa which under the general Yusuf bin Tashfin defeated the Christians resoundingly in 1086, and by 1102 had recaptured most of Andalusia. The general was able to reunite much of Muslim Spain.

Revival

It didn't last. Yusuf died in 1106, and, as one historian puts it, the "rulers of Muslim states began cutting each other's throats again".

Internal rebellions in 1144 and 1145 further shattered Islamic unity, and despite intermittent military successes, Islam's domination of Spain was ended for good.

The Muslims finally lost all power in Spain in 1492. By 1502 the Christian rulers issued an order requiring all Muslims to convert to Christianity, and when this didn't work, they imposed brutal restrictions on the remaining Spanish Muslims.

[Guest guest]

> Back to the point. Government is like any other living thing: it seeks

to

> grow and expand. Unfortunately, it is more like cancer or fire: it

feeds and

> grows at the expense of the rest of society.

I agree with you 100%.

Kim

[Guest guest]

" Mass sin from liberalism, exchange of information? How so? "

Without goimng into a massive religious debate, I'll make a few

comments but just point out a few credentials first (if you could

call the credentials).

I was the first and only confirmation student in the history of my

Lutheran Church during the time of my two pastors who was asked to

consider going to seminary, and I was asked many times since that by

these two pastors and one more since. The reason was because, not

only did I - a public school student - have more Biblical knowledge

than any student in Lutheran school or in public, but I had an

intuitive grasp of at as well. I have read many different versions of

the Bible and have attended many different denominations of churches,

from Baptist, to Lutheran, to Catholic to Episcapalian.

There are in essence two main texts for the Bible. Hebrew and Greek,

and these texts are so similar that it is clear the meaning of them

was intended to be the same across translation. The finding of the

Dead Sea Scrolls with supplemental manuscripts demonstrates that most

of what was written that is purely Biblical is also in accordance

with the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Most modern translations do not deviate from the Greek and Hebrew

texts. (This includes the King version, which was thought at

one time to have been altered for King ' political reasons).

Additionally, it is quite amazing that so many people in so many

separate places (, Mark and Luke and are just four

examples of this) should be able to recount events written centuries

earlier by other authors without having direct or historical

knowledge of those events and without access to every peice of the

prior text as they were writing their own contribution. It is

impossible for this to occur without divine inspiration, i.e. them

being told by God what to write.

Just as the Virgin did not have to conceive to give birth to

Jesus, NONE of the people who wrote a chapter for the Bible had all

of the previous text on which to add their own contribution. Ergo the

Bible is another example of the immaculate conception, albiet of

words, and not beings.

Students of the Bible will know that there are some colloquialisms

which have altered meanings nowdays or which have no current

understandable translations, but by far, the majority of what is

written in the Bible, say about 90% or greater, is perfectly clear to

modern man even thought the Hebrew and Greek texts were written two

millenia ago.

Students of the Bible will also know that the true meaning of God and

what he has intended for mankind can ONLY be gotten through a

complete cover to cover reading of the Bible. Even the boring chapter

of Numbers is needed for a complete comprehension of the Bible.

The NUMBER ONE reason people squabble over religious differences is

because most people are picking and chosing phrases from the Bible

and interpreting them ONLY as they stand alone, or ONLY within the

context of the anecdote, chapter, or book it was drawn from and NOT

from within the context of the entire Bible itself.

Those who know what the Bible says IN ITS ENTIRETY do not suffer the

moral, ethical, and religious dilemmas that more ignorant people do

because what God wants and what we are supposed to do is made

perfectly clear.

By far, the people, groups, sects, and denominations who have chosen

to use the Bible as a reference book only are the ones who perpetuate

behaviors and attitudes that cause moral decay and it is the people

who have such depraved behaviors and attitudes that tend to suffer

the most isn't it?

If there IS a God, doesn't it make sense that the the people who

ultimately suffer the most are the ones who disobey the Bible (which

is called by God " THE WORD OF GOD " ) the most?

THAT is why liberalism, as it pertains to religion (in any religion),

is wrong. Liberalism in religion is either one of two things:

1) A belief system that is based on ignorance of God, or ignorance of

divinely inspired text, or

2) A wilfull defiance of what has been written, or

3) Both of the above.

Any time you hear someone say: " The BIBLE says... " you know you are

talking to an INFORMED Christian.

Any time you hear someone say " That verse says, " or " That chapter

says " or " That book says " or " But God would understand my situation "

you know you are talking to a " liberal " /ignorant Christian.

Lastly: Christians are charged with taking their Christian brothers

to task if they go astray, and that is why there is so much

infighting going on.

From an external perspective, it all looks like extremists versus

some nice people, but it is actually the informed trying to educate

the ignorant.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/24/2007 3:46:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

This is the type of plan my husband currently has now. It's a 50/50investment plan and none of his check has social security taken out. The only thing that is irksome about the set up is that whenever weresearch what we are allowed to invest in and make a change to the bestfund, the city will change the companies that they will be using. Thathas only happened twice in sixteen years but it is aggravating to do theresearch only to have that option taken away.

I can see how that would be irritating. What I would like to see under the program I suggested would be a simple full market investment which would be offered by any investment house. There would be just the one plan there, and the companies would be overwatched by the government, probably the SEC.

However, people would be encouraged to invest in other funds or stocks as well. Those could be any stock or product offered by any investment house.

The point would be to provide a simple and fairly secure investment for the people. It would be regulated but not under the direct control of the government. The reason there is simple: we're talking lots of money and giving the government that much direct control over the markets and companies would be asking for trouble.

I think an additional effect of this system would be to keep business more honest. Enron got away with what it did as such because the number of investors was relatively small. However, if virtually everyone in the US saw their funds drop because of Enron's bad behavior, you can be sure the politicians would have felt a lot more heat than they did and those people would have been more harshly punished.

"That would seem to equal out the distribution of funds so that groupsthat help those needing aid need not play pitty patty with the pols. Think of the time saved not having to court the reps and whine to thenewspapers."

It might not equal out the funds, but what it would do is reduce the number of people getting checks from the government. Over time, the number would fall to a fraction of the current number. This have the effect of reducing government's power by holding certain people as clients, but it would also reduce government spending quite a bit, and those people that did need the help could be better cared for.

You are right also that it would cut much of the lobbying and nonsense.

"Too bad you never ran for office. One person can make a difference butthat would be like trying to blow a wave from the shore.Kim"

That has been suggested, but I don't make a good politician. I don't like lying to people, especially not about important things and I certain don't like sucking up to people. Politicians do both at the same time on campaign. I also wouldn't want to be beholden to the money men and such. Besides, my reforms would greatly limit politician's power, especially the term limits, and would make them pretty much make them not quite unnecessary, but certainly less important than they are today.

So in addition to what I have mentioned so far, I would be for:

Term limits: 4 terms as Representative (8 years), 2 as a Senator (12 years) and 2 as President (8 years).

No more riders in bills: a bill would only contain lines directly related to the issue at hand. No hiding spending or regulations for totally unrelated matters in "must pass" bills because there is no other way to get them through.

Requiring the Congress to provide funding for all mandates. Unfunded Mandates are very common now. These are mandates and regulations handed down by Congress that cost private entities or states money to implement and maintain. Congress would have to provide most of the money for these projects.

Removal of Congressional exemptions from the laws it passes. They have exempted themselves from many such laws, especially hiring and employment laws.

There are others, but so far I have covered the big ones. Restricting the ability of the government to tax and spend would take away most of its ability to be a nuisance. Privatizing the retirement programs would take away even more power and would force the people to become more financially aware which would again require Congress and business to be more honest.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

> Companies could tie in pension plans into

> these private accounts, putting money into them that would have gone

to the

> pension owned by the company. That would relieve the companies of a

lot of book

> keeping worry and would be fully transportable from job to job.

This is the type of plan my husband currently has now. It's a 50/50

investment plan and none of his check has social security taken out.

The only thing that is irksome about the set up is that whenever we

research what we are allowed to invest in and make a change to the best

fund, the city will change the companies that they will be using. That

has only happened twice in sixteen years but it is aggravating to do the

research only to have that option taken away.

> Standard social security would be maintained for those who really

needed it.

> A program would be set up for indigent elderly, with help from family

> encouraged. Another could be set up for younger people with

disabilities.

> Doing this would remove a huge client base from the government.

Currently

> the government commands the loyalty of millions of clients in the SS

system and

> will add millions more over time. If those were private accounts in

the main,

> then the government would have far less power.

That would seem to equal out the distribution of funds so that groups

that help those needing aid need not play pitty patty with the pols.

Think of the time saved not having to court the reps and whine to the

newspapers.

>

> Bear in mind also that the federal courts, even the Supreme Court, has

ruled

> that the government is under no obligation to actually pay SS

benefits. This

> is possible because of the pay as you go nature of the system. The SS

tax

> goes into the general fund, not some special lock box, and enough is

paid out to

> cover existing expenses. The government could, however, just up and

say it

> is no longer going to pay certain people or anyone at all, or cut

benefits and

> would be legally correct. Private accounts would not have that

problem.

>

> There are a lot of things that could be done that would stabilize the

> country, but they won't be.

Too bad you never ran for office. One person can make a difference but

that would be like trying to blow a wave from the shore.

Kim

[Guest guest]

Thank you for explaining your background and the reasons for your

abiding faith. I have just a couple more questions and then stop

talking religion, which may upset someone or you, which is not my

intent.

> Additionally, it is quite amazing that so many people in so many

> separate places (, Mark and Luke and are just four

> examples of this) should be able to recount events written centuries

> earlier by other authors without having direct or historical

> knowledge of those events and without access to every peice of the

> prior text as they were writing their own contribution. It is

> impossible for this to occur without divine inspiration, i.e. them

> being told by God what to write.

In this paragraph I could have almost mistaken you for my Uncle, who was

once in the seminary, when we talked about the authors of the Bible. I

always thought that people who were faithful practitioners of their

rituals, thus told the stories over and over and over. These were

handed down over generations upon generations. Because there was no

other preoccupation with diversions that we have today, isn't it

possible that these were teachings passed along and remembered

throughout large regional areas? I'm not questioning the truth of the

content, merely how it was obtained.

> Students of the Bible will also know that the true meaning of God and

> what he has intended for mankind can ONLY be gotten through a

> complete cover to cover reading of the Bible. Even the boring chapter

> of Numbers is needed for a complete comprehension of the Bible.

So in answer to which text is that what we should follow, the Koran, the

Bible, or the Torah, your answer is clear. So, is it a sin for

Christians to study any other belief?

What I remember is that being a good Christain is to, in essence, be a

disciple and spread his word. How do different cultures co-exsist

peacefully if they differ in religous beliefs yet are encouraged to talk

to one another if there isn't any tolerance?

In the past and present, Christains and Muslims who tried to force

conversions or take overs did so through violent means. To be true to

the faith of either means there is no middle ground and so the people

will never live in peace.

> By far, the people, groups, sects, and denominations who have chosen

> to use the Bible as a reference book only are the ones who perpetuate

> behaviors and attitudes that cause moral decay and it is the people

> who have such depraved behaviors and attitudes that tend to suffer

> the most isn't it?

Are they? Suffering is universal but I agree that moral decay does lend

a hand in a situation's poor outcome. Does your belief in heaven and

hell, knowing there will be a reckoning for behavior, good or bad, help

you cope with life?

I may seem to be in the " willful defient " category but I've asked the

same questions to my Mother and others with an open heart. It would

seem my faith is lacking. Thank you for putting up with my ignorance.

Kim

[Guest guest]

whoever wrote things about social security is incorrect in thier thinking...SS is a fund unto itself...the only reason it is going broke is because government has been dipping into it to pay for things other than what it was meant for(Korea,Vietnam,ie.) they have left a pile of I.O.U.'s in place of our money.And they have done this in spite of the fact that it was and is not legal to do so.If the money was repaid the system would not be broken...Larry Kim <6emini@...> wrote: > Companies could tie in pension plans into> these private accounts, putting money into them that would have goneto the> pension owned by the company. That would relieve the companies of alot of book> keeping worry and would be fully transportable from job to job.This is the type of plan my husband currently has now. It's a 50/50investment plan and none of his check has social security taken out. The only thing that is irksome about the set up is that whenever weresearch what we are allowed to invest in and make a change to the bestfund, the city will change the companies that they will be using. Thathas only happened twice in sixteen years but it is aggravating to do theresearch only to have that option taken away.> Standard social security would be maintained for those who

reallyneeded it.> A program would be set up for indigent elderly, with help from family> encouraged. Another could be set up for younger people withdisabilities.> Doing this would remove a huge client base from the government.Currently> the government commands the loyalty of millions of clients in the SSsystem and> will add millions more over time. If those were private accounts inthe main,> then the government would have far less power.That would seem to equal out the distribution of funds so that groupsthat help those needing aid need not play pitty patty with the pols. Think of the time saved not having to court the reps and whine to thenewspapers.>> Bear in mind also that the federal courts, even the Supreme Court, hasruled> that the government is under no obligation to actually pay SSbenefits. This> is possible because of the pay as you go

nature of the system. The SStax> goes into the general fund, not some special lock box, and enough ispaid out to> cover existing expenses. The government could, however, just up andsay it> is no longer going to pay certain people or anyone at all, or cutbenefits and> would be legally correct. Private accounts would not have thatproblem.>> There are a lot of things that could be done that would stabilize the> country, but they won't be.Too bad you never ran for office. One person can make a difference butthat would be like trying to blow a wave from the shore.Kim

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with FareChase.

[Guest guest]

the whole belief system of christianity is flawed . because of the perpetuation of the white lie that Jesus died upon the cross.He did not .There was instead an intervention. He was given Mandrake root in the vinegar that he was given to quench his thirst.Thusly he was only in a death-like trance when he was taken off the cross. The New Testament is a crock for the most part put together by a pagan caeser and a rogue bishop to satisfy thier own means the writings of Saul are not true. I am a follower of Jesus , The Baptist ,and the Just ,of the true church in Jeruselam.And also a believer(as was Jesus) in the laws of the Buddha. Those that believe that allthat is required to attain Heaven is to believe in the death and resurection of Jesus are incorrect(were it only that simple) To attain Heaven requires service and love to your fellow brothers and sisters and that will bring you closer to nirvana It is a long path and requires many

lifetimes....Larry environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: "Mass sin from liberalism, exchange of information? How so?"Without goimng into a massive religious debate, I'll make a few comments but just point out a few credentials first (if you could call the credentials).I was the first and only confirmation student in the history of my Lutheran Church

during the time of my two pastors who was asked to consider going to seminary, and I was asked many times since that by these two pastors and one more since. The reason was because, not only did I - a public school student - have more Biblical knowledge than any student in Lutheran school or in public, but I had an intuitive grasp of at as well. I have read many different versions of the Bible and have attended many different denominations of churches, from Baptist, to Lutheran, to Catholic to Episcapalian. There are in essence two main texts for the Bible. Hebrew and Greek, and these texts are so similar that it is clear the meaning of them was intended to be the same across translation. The finding of the Dead Sea Scrolls with supplemental manuscripts demonstrates that most of what was written that is purely Biblical is also in accordance with the Hebrew and Greek texts. Most modern translations do not

deviate from the Greek and Hebrew texts. (This includes the King version, which was thought at one time to have been altered for King ' political reasons). Additionally, it is quite amazing that so many people in so many separate places (, Mark and Luke and are just four examples of this) should be able to recount events written centuries earlier by other authors without having direct or historical knowledge of those events and without access to every peice of the prior text as they were writing their own contribution. It is impossible for this to occur without divine inspiration, i.e. them being told by God what to write. Just as the Virgin did not have to conceive to give birth to Jesus, NONE of the people who wrote a chapter for the Bible had all of the previous text on which to add their own contribution. Ergo the Bible is another example of the immaculate conception, albiet of

words, and not beings.Students of the Bible will know that there are some colloquialisms which have altered meanings nowdays or which have no current understandable translations, but by far, the majority of what is written in the Bible, say about 90% or greater, is perfectly clear to modern man even thought the Hebrew and Greek texts were written two millenia ago. Students of the Bible will also know that the true meaning of God and what he has intended for mankind can ONLY be gotten through a complete cover to cover reading of the Bible. Even the boring chapter of Numbers is needed for a complete comprehension of the Bible.The NUMBER ONE reason people squabble over religious differences is because most people are picking and chosing phrases from the Bible and interpreting them ONLY as they stand alone, or ONLY within the context of the anecdote, chapter, or book it was drawn from and NOT from

within the context of the entire Bible itself.Those who know what the Bible says IN ITS ENTIRETY do not suffer the moral, ethical, and religious dilemmas that more ignorant people do because what God wants and what we are supposed to do is made perfectly clear. By far, the people, groups, sects, and denominations who have chosen to use the Bible as a reference book only are the ones who perpetuate behaviors and attitudes that cause moral decay and it is the people who have such depraved behaviors and attitudes that tend to suffer the most isn't it?If there IS a God, doesn't it make sense that the the people who ultimately suffer the most are the ones who disobey the Bible (which is called by God "THE WORD OF GOD") the most? THAT is why liberalism, as it pertains to religion (in any religion), is wrong. Liberalism in religion is either one of two things:1) A belief system that is based on

ignorance of God, or ignorance of divinely inspired text, or2) A wilfull defiance of what has been written, or3) Both of the above.Any time you hear someone say: "The BIBLE says..." you know you are talking to an INFORMED Christian. Any time you hear someone say "That verse says," or "That chapter says" or "That book says" or "But God would understand my situation" you know you are talking to a "liberal"/ignorant Christian. Lastly: Christians are charged with taking their Christian brothers to task if they go astray, and that is why there is so much infighting going on. From an external perspective, it all looks like extremists versus some nice people, but it is actually the informed trying to educate the ignorant.TomAdministrator

Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on TV.

[Guest guest]

>

> whoever wrote things about social security is incorrect in thier

thinking...SS is a fund unto itself...

What you read was a theory by to improve, through changes, the

government systems within the USA. I am impressed with his knowledge of

world history and believe he has studied the repeated flaws made within

governments past and present, that allows him to give plausible

corrections that could work.

Kim

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/24/2007 7:18:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, jermas56@... writes:

whoever wrote things about social security is incorrect in thier thinking...SS is a fund unto itself...the only reason it is going broke is because government has been dipping into it to pay for things other than what it was meant for(Korea,Vietnam,ie.) they have left a pile of I.O.U.'s in place of our money.And they have done this in spite of the fact that it was and is not legal to do so.If the money was repaid the system would not be broken...Larry

Not really. There is said to be a Social Security Trust, but it doesn't really exist. What the trustees do is look at how much money comes in based on the current SS tax, and compare that to future expected outlays. What they mean when they say that SS will run out in 2030 or whenever is that that is when the taxes won't cover outlays anymore. There is no special account just for social security, like some vault full of cash or an investment portfolio, there is nothing but what Congress pays per year from the general fund.

Social Security was never intended to be anything but a gimmick to get votes for FDR. It was carefully calculated such that the vast majority of people in the 1920's would not live to draw from SS. That is why "retirement age" was set at 65. At that time, the life expectancy for just about everyone, especially blue collar types, was below that. They could also point out that there would be more than 8 workers per retiree, that is 8 people paying to support 1, which should have sounded alarm bells in the first place.

What happened over the years is that life expectancy has exceeded 65 for virtually everyone, over by 15 years or more. What that means is that a person draws from SS what they paid into it by taxes in a few years. After 5 or 6 years, most people have exceeded what they pay in taxes, so it would be coming from the general fund anyway. Also, there are now only about 2 workers per retiree. Given what I just said, you can see how that would be a growing drain on the economy.

If, however, Social Security were private, with individual accounts as I have described, the majority of the people would be able to support themselves in their old age, could keep working if they wanted to, and wouldn't have to worry about being stuck in the gap between destitute and having just that little too much (usually owning a home) to qualify for aid. Happens to far more people than you think. It would be a very simple matter to look at how much a private account was paying out and making up a certain difference from the government if it wasn't met, or supporting them outright if they had no account. It would be better if private foundations or family could make up that difference, however.

Most amusing about SS is that it is taxed! That is what I find absolutely ridiculous. How can the government give out money on the one hand, collected as taxes, then turn around and tax that little amount? Not only is it morally questionable, but it is a waste of resources because they government has to do the book keeping of the payout but also the book keeping, auditing and collection of the tax, which certainly costs more by far than what little tax they would collect. If the government is giving the money, they should tax it. After all, they don't tax welfare which is a pure handout, but SS is supposed to have been raised by taxing the recipient during their working life, so technically the person is being double taxed. It is just ridiculous.

Now, Korea and Vietnam had nothing to do with taking money from SS. The wars were expensive and could have been fought harder to force a resolution more favorable to us. Korea wasn't so bad though because it was a small area and relatively short duration. Vietnam did cause economic problems but not because SS was raided, but because the Presidents refused to raise taxes to pay for the war. The war funding went to plain old deficit spending, just like they all do. It was the duration of Vietnam and the size of the troop commitments, Plus commitments in Europe and elsewhere, that were a drain on the economy.

Military spending has always been a small part of the budget. Today, even with the war in Iraq, military spending is about 3% of GDP. Healthcare spending, on the other hand, is approaching 19%. Social programs outstrip military spending in the budget by 3 to one or more. Military spending always gets a bad rap, but it is the most important aspect of government: if a nation doesn't have a military to protect itself and its allies, it won't be a nation very long.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/24/2007 8:48:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 6emini@... writes:

What you read was a theory by to improve, through changes, thegovernment systems within the USA. I am impressed with his knowledge ofworld history and believe he has studied the repeated flaws made withingovernments past and present, that allows him to give plausiblecorrections that could work.Kim

Thanks again. I have studied a lot of history and the causes of national collapse are pretty constant. Two of the biggest are overstretching one's reach and fiscal irresponsibility. It contributed to the collapse of the Romans, many Chinese dynasties, the Mongols, and many others.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that if a person takes on a lot of debt, the payments on that debt consume more of their income. That represents an opportunity cost. That is to say money has to go to pay the debt rather than something the debtor might like more, such as buying a new TV. Eventually, it is possible to wrack up enough debt to go bankrupt.

These same rules apply to government.

There is a lot of debt out there, and it is owned by people who might not be that friendly, like China. Already, they are beginning to realize that the US is tapped out, that even if they called the notes, it is unlikely that they would get their money back. We are probably going to see a real credit crunch in the next few years and just what that will do I don't know.

Now, what really got me on the track of all this is a book called, When Nations Die. It looks at 10 aspects that were present in societies that failed. They ranged from fiscal matters, military overreach to moral decay. If you can find it, I bought my copy at a second hand book store but libraries might have it or be able to get it, you can see the different things going on. It should be mandatory reading for everyone in government, because we have many of those signs. It should be used as a guide to rework the system for long term survivability. I don't think that will happen because politicians don't think long term. By not doing anything they get re-elected. Making it so the country would be here in another 200 years would give them the stature of the Founding Fathers and remembrance forever.

Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

" the whole belief system of christianity is flawed . because of the

perpetuation of the white lie that Jesus died upon the cross.He did

not .There was instead an intervention. He was given Mandrake root in

the vinegar that he was given to quench his thirst.Thusly he was only

in a death-like trance when he was taken off the cross. The New

Testament is a crock for the most part put together by a pagan

caeser and a rogue bishop to satisfy thier own means the writings of

Saul are not true. "

Let's assume you are, for a moment correct.

" I am a follower of Jesus... "

Why would you want to follow someone who perpetuated fraud by not

making his followers aware of the deception you cite?

" ... The Baptist ,and the Just ,of the true church in

Jeruselam.And also a believer(as was Jesus) in the laws of the

Buddha. "

If you deny the New Testament but believe in the Old Testament, then

you know that in the Old Testament God says, " You shall have no other

Gods before me. " Buddha is regarded as a God by those who follow him,

thus his teachings are invalidated by God, and also Jesus, who

claimed to be God's son.

" Those that believe that all that is required to attain Heaven is to

believe in the death and resurection of Jesus are incorrect(were it

only that simple) To attain Heaven requires service and love to your

fellow brothers and sisters and that will bring you closer to nirvana

It is a long path and requires many lifetimes....Larry "

I respect your point of view, but your point of view is in direct

contrast to the teachings of Jesus, who said in 10:9 " Yes, I am

the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved. Wherever they

go, they will find green pastures. "

Jesus was the incarnation of God, and what he meant by this phrase

was that all who believe in him, and therefore, God (who said there

are no other Gods) and all God stands for, and His Word of God (The

Bible) given in both the Old and New Testaments, will be saved.

If the Word of God in the New Testament is a lie, then what Jesus

says in the New Testament must be a lie, ergo you are following a

liar.

The Bible says clearly: Eph 2:8 Eph 2:8 " For by grace are ye saved

through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Jesus Christ... 2Ti 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life-

not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose

and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the

beginning of time, "

These versus make no statement about " service and love to your fellow

brothers and sisters " and " nirvana " as you call it, has no

descriptuion in the Bible. You live, you die, you go to Heaven. These

are the teachings of Jesus as found in The Word of God.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

" the whole belief system of christianity is flawed . because of the

perpetuation of the white lie that Jesus died upon the cross.He did

not .There was instead an intervention. He was given Mandrake root in

the vinegar that he was given to quench his thirst.Thusly he was only

in a death-like trance when he was taken off the cross. The New

Testament is a crock for the most part put together by a pagan

caeser and a rogue bishop to satisfy thier own means the writings of

Saul are not true. "

Let's assume you are, for a moment correct.

" I am a follower of Jesus... "

Why would you want to follow someone who perpetuated fraud by not

making his followers aware of the deception you cite?

" ... The Baptist ,and the Just ,of the true church in

Jeruselam.And also a believer(as was Jesus) in the laws of the

Buddha. "

If you deny the New Testament but believe in the Old Testament, then

you know that in the Old Testament God says, " You shall have no other

Gods before me. " Buddha is regarded as a God by those who follow him,

thus his teachings are invalidated by God, and also Jesus, who

claimed to be God's son.

" Those that believe that all that is required to attain Heaven is to

believe in the death and resurection of Jesus are incorrect(were it

only that simple) To attain Heaven requires service and love to your

fellow brothers and sisters and that will bring you closer to nirvana

It is a long path and requires many lifetimes....Larry "

I respect your point of view, but your point of view is in direct

contrast to the teachings of Jesus, who said in 10:9 " Yes, I am

the gate. Those who come in through me will be saved. Wherever they

go, they will find green pastures. "

Jesus was the incarnation of God, and what he meant by this phrase

was that all who believe in him, and therefore, God (who said there

are no other Gods) and all God stands for, and His Word of God (The

Bible) given in both the Old and New Testaments, will be saved.

If the Word of God in the New Testament is a lie, then what Jesus

says in the New Testament must be a lie, ergo you are following a

liar.

The Bible says clearly: Eph 2:8 Eph 2:8 " For by grace are ye saved

through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Jesus Christ... 2Ti 1:9 who has saved us and called us to a holy life-

not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose

and grace. This grace was given us in Christ Jesus before the

beginning of time, "

These versus make no statement about " service and love to your fellow

brothers and sisters " and " nirvana " as you call it, has no

descriptuion in the Bible. You live, you die, you go to Heaven. These

are the teachings of Jesus as found in The Word of God.

Tom

Administrator

[Guest guest]

jer mas wrote: " ... <snip> ... the whole belief system of

christianity is flawed . because of the perpetuation of the white lie

that Jesus died upon the cross. He did not ... <snip> ... "

I wasn't there as an eye witness but I've read many reliable eye

witness accounts. What makes you claim that he didn't die as

reported by these reliable eye witnesses?

jer mas wrote: " ... <snip> ... There was instead an intervention. He

was given Mandrake root in the vinegar that he was given to quench

his thirst ... <snip> ... "

Mandrake is traditionally believed to increase a woman's fertility,

particularly in the East. Aside from that, mandrake causes delirium

and hallucinations if ingested in sufficient quantities. It was even

used for pain relief or as a mild anaesthetic. I haven't been able

to find any reliable resources that claim Mandrake is used to fake

symptoms of death.

Now, had you said he ate fugu sushi (raw blowfish) at the last

supper, I might have considered this as a possibility as you can

actually be poisoned by the naturally occuring Tetrodotoxin

(anhydrotetrodotoxin 4-epitetrodotoxin, tetrodonic acid, TTX) in

blowfish. This naturally occuring poison in the blowfish can, when

ingested, produce paralysis of the diaphragm and instantaneous death

due to respiratory failure There's no known antidote.

But then again, blowfish weren't part of the Middle Eastern diet at

the time Jesus walked the earth so we can't guess that maybe he had

sushi for his last meal.

You see, jer mas, whereas I respect your right to voice your opinion

on matters, I object to your disrespect of someone else's spiritual

beliefs even if those spiritual beliefs are not my own.

Personally, I would appreciate it if you would discuss the matter

with more respect towards any Christians who may also be a member of

this forum. Outrageous claims that cannot be substantiated rarely

lead to meaningful discussions.

Raven

[Guest guest]

> That sort of liberalism resulted in mass-sin. The reason the

religions

> are divided now, even amongst themselves, is that there are those who

> use the teachings and texts to do what they should be doing, and

those

> that use the teachings and texts to do what they WANT to do, and

> sometimes what people WANT to do is not what God wants people to do

> (according to teachings and text anyway).

>

> So there is division now in the religious community.

>

> Tom

> Administrator

>

I was thinking about Judism and it's 3 levels

ultra ortadox (hasidm) Letter of the law

orthadox thinking about G'd intentions and mans

modern bends law to do as they would like

G'd gave us brains to reason and think, and laws to guide us. It is

the loop holing of religion that taints it. the 10 commandments may

have been enough, and the teachings of many others should be

incorperated into daily life. Jesus included (I find many people bend

what he said to fit their needs and desires) His linage and mystery

are unimportant (largely) what he intended and tried to get across is

the real value but people tend to value the mystery more. The symbols

rather than the content. This is just my view and i am not trying to

anger anyone religious. I concede that I was not present nor do i have

any truer account than anyone else just my own therories

[Guest guest]

Hi, Kat. It sounds like your hubby has quite a fight on his hands. Tell him to try to keep a positive attitude and take it one day at a time. Hugs, VG KATHY SHELNUTT wrote: HI EVERYONE JUST STOPPED BY TO SAY HI HOPE EVERYONE IS DOING GOOD JON HAVE MISSED SEEING YOU IN CHAT WOULD LIKE TO SAY HI TO ALL THE NEW PEOPLE IN GROUP GLAD THAT YOU JOINED THIS GREAT GROUP YOU CAN FIND EVERYTHING

YOU NEED HERE ALL THE INFORMATION ANSWERS TO ANY QUESTION AND ALL THE LOVE AND SUPPORT YOU NEED IM KAT HEP FREE HUBBY HAS HEP C GENOTYPE 4 STAGE 4/1 DID TX IN 2OO3-2004 NONRESPONDER BUT DOING GOOD ALSO DEVELOPED DIABETES HE ALSO HAS HEMOPHILIA WHICH IS A BLEEDING DISORDER HE HAS NOT CLOTTING FACTOR IN HIS BLOOD WE LIVE IN GA KAT Got a little couch potato? Check out fun

summer activities for kids.

Got a little couch potato?

Check out fun summer activities for kids.

[Guest guest]

dont know if I answered this but I am a non responder off tx now 4 weeks or so Deb wrote: Hi Ya in Germany How are you and are you back on Hep C tx ????? All The Best. Deb Goolsby <anthonyegoolsby> wrote: hey thanks I use a product with Yohimbe or should I say used Do you have any more such info if so I would love to have it I am very intrested in cretaine or creatine not sure how to spell it and any vitamins that are not good or should be taken in moderation. Been of treatment about 6 weeks and really enjoy being

back at the gym.But having Hep I need to be very careful thanks

Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.

[Guest guest]

dont know if I answered this but I am a non responder off tx now 4 weeks or so Deb wrote: Hi Ya in Germany How are you and are you back on Hep C tx ????? All The Best. Deb Goolsby <anthonyegoolsby> wrote: hey thanks I use a product with Yohimbe or should I say used Do you have any more such info if so I would love to have it I am very intrested in cretaine or creatine not sure how to spell it and any vitamins that are not good or should be taken in moderation. Been of treatment about 6 weeks and really enjoy being

back at the gym.But having Hep I need to be very careful thanks

Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.