Hope the serious ugly partisanship gets a little under control before the collapse happens.

My ONLY earlier point was that I can be “moral†absent some anthropomorphic “God†authority figure.

*Grin*

Obviously we’ll agree to disagree! IMO, ultimately the only (reasonable) way is to allow each his own choice, using his own mental powers to determine what is right or wrong. Each will reap the result of those choices.

(I’ll just note that I’m not condeming anyone any more than myself – at least in terms of “moral-ness.”)

My last word on this, is look at internal behaviors, not external. Do we always do what’s right, for the right reasons – in all areas? Is it something we really *want* to do? For myself, the answer is no.

I’d just ask tolerance on both sides. Rather than mock me as an idiot, who believes fanciful crap, view me as perhaps sadly misguided, but harmless. Some of us who progess a strong belief in God and such don’t have ill will toward you at all. We don’t view you as full of crap. In the vast majority of cases, my spiritual and religeous beliefs are mine in private. I only discuss them here because they’re relevant to the issue being discussed.

This, IMO, is how it ought to be. My spirituality is mine, privately. If you’re a friend and ask about it, or we discuss the issues in detail then it’s appropriate for me to bring it up. Pushing my views on an unwilling “victim” does neither of us any good, and probably hardens your “unbelief.”

Best wishes,Greg

I do not have a television. I do not watch movies. I do not listen to the radio. Those are all vehicles of conditioning that are all dangerous to an individual’s self. I do not need or want to be told what to do or say or think, not as nation or a church or a religion. Just because ‘it’ is there, does not mean it is good or needed or required. It is up to each individual. The ‘conditioning’ is only possible when a person gives up their individuality.

The individual should always be there. Society, a very great evil to individuality, aims to bind us all into one. True Christians, of which there are maybe sixteen, know not to be ‘grouped’; A true Christian will never be found in a religious/group environment. Those that allow themselves to be grouped are psuedo-christians, speaking words but not living the way of life that is true to Jesus.

I know no one that can honestly and factually tell me that there really ever was a Jesus. That is the ‘point of it all… They do not really care if there was, and so it is possible to lie, and for those lies to be accepted. That is how Ralph Reed works and that is how G.W.Bush works. Lying begets lying. That is the way it always has been, and religious people do it the best for they do it all of the time, as a way of life and living.

And as the aforementioned goes, the importance and value of money is a lie. It is all real, and really imaginary. It can be anyone’s god as they see fit. As such, all can be an evil(?) god with money, but more often than not, money will be a good(?) god. So it is with christians and jews and islamic and whomever. The only game in town — any town (religion) — is money.

The chasm is imaginary.

Each individuals important is imaginary.

Value… What is it to each individual?

If it goes no further for a person than that, the individual — the soul — is easily bought. That is the real “chasm”.

Individuality for each and every individual, done by the termination of legalized favoritism (churches and political parties and charities and social groups and whatever) has to and needs to stop, else what just happened as depicted by the actions of the GOP and organized religions will keep on happening.

[Sigh]… It ain’t gonna happen… Never-ever for a group or even the leader or leaders of a group. It will only be so for individuals. But, there is no money to be made if each is an individual… So, we have grouping and all the evil(?) that is within and without.

Just remember, your satans are your gods… Always and forever:-)

“…As it has watched Iran’s evolution, the United States has delivered more and more studied warnings that “all options remain openâ€â€”code to the Iranians that they should worry about an attack. In different ways, George W. Bush and two aspiring successors, John McCain and Hillary Clinton, have expressed this view. Government officials in Israel have been more explicit still, with the defense minister saying that Israel “will not accept†Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Intellectuals, activists, and out-of-power politicians from Newt Gingrich to Benjamin Netanyahu have all urged their leaders to stand firm.

The biggest change has been in what Soviet strategists used to call the “correlation of forces.†Every tool at Iran’s disposal is now more powerful, and every complication for the United States worse, than when our war-gamers determined that a pre-emptive strike could not succeed. Iran has used the passing time to disperse, diversify, conceal, and protect its nuclear centers. Instead of a dozen or so potential sites that would have to be destroyed, it now has at least twice that many. The Shiite dominance of Iraq’s new government and military has consolidated, and the ties between the Shiites of Iran and those of Iraq have grown more intense. Early this year, the Iraqi Shiite warlord Muqtada al-Sadr suggested that he would turn his Mahdi Army against Americans if they attacked Iran.

Economically, Iran also has far greater leverage than before. Through 2004, the price of a barrel of oil averaged less than $40. In 2006, it has been above $60, an increase of more than 50 percent. Rising demand from China, India, and, yes, the United States has left virtually no slack in the world’s oil markets. OPEC’s “spare†production capacity—the amount it could quickly supply beyond current demand—is about 1 million barrels a day. Iran now supplies about 4 million barrels a day. If it chose to, or had to, remove much of its oil from the market, a bidding war could send the price of a barrel of oil above $100. Eventually, everyone would adjust. Eventually, the Great Depression ended.

Perhaps the American and Israeli hard-liners know all this, and are merely bluffing. If so, they have made an elementary strategic error. The target of their bluff is the Iranian government, and the most effective warnings would be discreet and back-channel. Iranian intelligence should be picking up secret signals that the United States is planning an attack. By giving public warnings, the United States and Israel “create ‘excess demand’ for military action,†as our war-game leader Sam Gardiner recently put it, and constrain their own negotiating choices. The inconvenient truth of American foreign policy is that the last five years have left us with a series of choices—and all of them are bad. The United States can’t keep troops in Iraq indefinitely, for obvious reasons. It can’t withdraw them, because of the chaos that would ensue. The United States can’t keep prisoners at Guantánamo Bay (and other overseas facilities) indefinitely, because of international and domestic challenges. But it can’t hastily release them, since many were and more have become terrorists. And it can’t even bring them to trial, because of procedural abuses that have already occurred. Similarly, the United States can’t accept Iran’s emergence as a nuclear power, but it cannot prevent this through military means—unless it is willing to commit itself to all-out war. The central flaw of American foreign policy these last few years has been the triumph of hope, wishful thinking, and self-delusion over realism and practicality. Realism about Iran starts with throwing out any plans to bomb.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran

Such are the fruits of allowing an incoherent dilettante into the U.S. Presidency.

Not so fast, bunky. The 144,000 are going to be Jewish virgins who will proselytize for Christ. What makes the 20 billion of dubious credibility is the “fact” that something like one-third of the entire world will be killed (by the Anti-Christ, and the various Tribulation events) by the time it’s all over. But you’re right–I forgot about express elevators.

My ONLY earlier point was that I can be “moral” absent some anthropomorphic “God” authority figure.

Anyway – Khadr’s military lawyer has been having trouble. I guess the main thing is no one told him he’s not really supposed to bother with a *defense* bc DOJ has already ok’d this as a no holds barred presidential “race to fiatâ€. “His military lawyer, Lt. Col. Colby Vokey, angrily said Khadr had been moved to solitary confinement “for no reason whatsoever” on March 30, making it difficult to prepare a defense.â€
So Khadr pulls what must be the training book response out (bc everyone seems to use it) and says he won’t “participate†in the trial.
Khadr spoke softly but Vokey shouted and slapped the table during a heated argument with the presiding officer, Marine Col. Robert Chester, who recessed the hearing and asked to see Vokey in private.
Wonder how that went?
The hearing resumed later under protest from the defense attorneys.. OK , prepare for this – the reason? They said it was an ethical violation for them to continue after their client asked them to take no further action until the solitary confinement ended
Did no one tell them that Mora left and took what ethics were left with him? Apparently not, bc he had some other words. Vokey retorted that the tribunal rules were unclear and not based on any legal framework, a common complaint from military lawyers assigned to defend the 10 Guantanamo prisoners charged before the tribunals.
“There’s no precedent here,” Vokey fumed. “I don’t know what rule to look to. I don’t know what law to look to.”
Yoo who! Vokey, pal, this is covered already. It’s the “President says so, so it’s legal†law that DOJ made up as they went along. Sheez! Who knows what kind of lunatic you’ll be when they had off the US citizen cases to you. No promotions for you until you get with the program. BTW – this guy named Andrew Tyrie needs a drinking buddy- you’re it.

That’s the beauty of our system. You can believe I’m full of crap.

You’re welcome to believe anything you want. Time and reality will be the test of it.

If I’m wrong, I’ve done nothing except to myself. I’ve not foisted my morals on you, by creating moral laws etc.

My point is just this. Christianity is clear in it’s basis on the Bible, that only God changes humans into internally unbroken people. If you choose to believe in Christian ideals, then you have to also believe that any effort to change people through some means other than the relationship with God is a failed effort.

However, God values choice above all else. You are welcome to choose any path you wish.

Eventually each of us is individually responsible for the choices we’ve made. (I can declare you (and myself) to be wrong, immoral and making bad choices. However, I must respect your choice to do so.)

Cheers,
Greg