Bug

More poo-poo on W's platter. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1141401,00.html

If it is like 'Montana Rock', take some extra leave slings.

Post deleted by mattp

I'm gonna buy another SUV.

Just a few suggestions here. I do not mean to speak for Scott who is doing well on his own. First, a very clear treatment of the question of law vs good works is in Romans chapters 1-12. Second, Dietrick Bonhoffer (sp?) was a catholic priest in Germany during WWII. He took part in and may have master-minded a nearly successful assassination attempt on Hitler. He justified his action based on his Chiristian faith using his theory of the 'five mandates' and the 'ultima ratio'. The five mandates are Family, Church, State, Friends, and Marriage. In normal times, all of the mandates overlap a little bit and to varying degrees. But when one of the mandates steps way over the line and overwhelms one or all of the other mandates, the 'Ultima Ratio" must be enacted to bring the mandates back into balance. The Ultima Ratio is not to be taken lightly but smaller less intrusive actions are needed from time to time to help keep the mandates separate and healthy. These smaller actions must be according to one's own concscience which should be excercised only after much reflection and prayer. Sometimes, this would include consultation with a leader of some type (church or state or family) but often, these are small acts that would be inappropriate to bring other people in on. So you are left to figure it out by yourself according to your own abilities and relationship with God. Another aspect of this is that to love someone does not always leave that person in their comfort zone. Sometimes, the right thing to do is not easy, fun, or painless and we need someone who is willing to risk our friendship to help us do what is best for us. To say that "The Bible says X. Therefor you must always do Y" is a gross misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings. He spoke out for the actions of the heart vs actions according to any set code.

How many condoms are you willing to wear at once?

It is rumored that population control was on the agenda for Kyoto but was removed under pressure by those who accept guidance from the Pope. This was certainly the case for the global conference in Rio.

Well I guess I won't be sharing any bivies with you. You SAVAGE!!!!

OK Doc. While I do not stay up nights wondering about it, I have no doubt that it was a vising craft. In fact, from my perspective, I have more proof that it exists than that you exist. Quick. Look in the mirror and tell us what you see. No wait. You need a witness to phone it in. It may not have had living things on it but it was not from earth. After hovering over Missoula for awhile, it turned up and south and flashed into space like a streak of light. Pretty cool. I want a ride around Mars but at sub-light please. I suspect that would be like helicoptering over the Amazon and offering a native a ride. Hi. I'm from earth. Is this a space ship?

The question of wether or not "aliens" exist is, for me, similar to the question of wether or not God exists. If you have had a direct experience or were influenced by a parent at an early age, you will probably believe. If not, not. So before anyone decides for themselves, they should take a quick look at where their family leaned and then decide if they are going to follow that path blindly or be willing to branch out. Just an opinion.

So why hasn't anyone offered the obvious possibility of us being planted here by beings from another planet? I saw a UFO once. Totally serious. My whole neighborhood was out on the street watching it for twenty minutes or so. It was about 1963 in Missoula. There was no doubt in anyone's minds about what we had just seen. It went away and never came back as far as we know. I would have a very hard time beleiving this if I had not been there. So, if there are intelligent life forms travelling the gallexy, how does that effect our cosmology? Our science?

The hard sell is a poor living. But you are assuming a fundamentalist interpretation of that parable. Taken in context, "turn the other cheek" is more likely to mean "do the unexpected and make them think." Lucky for you, the hard sell is typical of fundamentalists.

Do you also ask your climbing partners to produce a photocopy of their MS in material science before you let them belay you with their gear? Only Catbird. All I am saying is, if you are going to argue in public you should have some basis other than a discipline that does not address your question. In other words, science does not refute nor substantiate religion. The basic questions still exist in both. To argue the ultimate question of where we came from, you should consult some of the brilliant minds of our culture who devoted their lives to the question. Without a firm basis for your beliefs, you will likely be swayed by the next good motivational speaker and the next,....................... No insult intended to the good people of CC.COM Thanks Bug. I would never presume to lay into the theory of Evolution as I know it takes years and years of studying to understand. Likewise, I would suggest you at least read the 'theories' you are trying to refute...Generally a good idea. What theories am I refuting? I personally think that evolution is the most likely explanation for the diversity of species. I suspect humans evolved from some other species. So far there is no absolute proof. Regardless, the question and answer have no bearing on the pertinance of religion nor on the existence of God unless you are holding fast to a strict fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Oh, I guess I did say that there are numerous Biblical passages that warn against a fundamentalist approach to interpreting the Bible. Is that what you are referring to? If so, start with Romans chapters 1-12. Again, I have no intention of insulting you or anyone else on the board. These are my beliefs after having studied physical anthropology, social scientific anthropology and religious studies. I also had a few classes in geology and a few in astronomy and physics. The only people I find myself disagreeing with are the people who say science and religion do not mix. Mythologies have always been based on emperical evidence. Before "science" a society's knowledge was stored in it's mythology. It was the source of hunting knowledge, plant knowledge, spiritual knowledge etc... Science is just a secular manifestation of the same desire to know why things work the way they do. The methodolgy is not all that different from the way mythologies were created and changed over time. What really changed our perspective on science vs religion was literacy. With literacy, everything is frozen unless the interpretation is left open. That was the value of parables. They read the interpreter. If it is atheism that you choose to follow, at least read the person most people hold to be the most brilliant atheist ever. Nietze. Using science to refute religion or using religion to refute science will only illustrate your lack of knowledge of one or both. Sorry if that pisses you off. It isn't an original idea.

I thought that was your other avatar.

Do you also ask your climbing partners to produce a photocopy of their MS in material science before you let them belay you with their gear? Only Catbird. All I am saying is, if you are going to argue in public you should have some basis other than a discipline that does not address your question. In other words, science does not refute nor substantiate religion. The basic questions still exist in both. To argue the ultimate question of where we came from, you should consult some of the brilliant minds of our culture who devoted their lives to the question. Without a firm basis for your beliefs, you will likely be swayed by the next good motivational speaker and the next,....................... No insult intended to the good people of CC.COM

Sheesh. You guys are all screwed up. If you are going to be atheists, at least read Nietze's 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. That way you won't sound so lost. There is no scientific explaination for the existence of God or the non-Existence of God. Same is true of the beginning of our world. What is infinity? Where did God come from? Neither one can be explained except through convoluted philosophic girations. And if you are going to insult christians, know which ones you are insulting. Getting to heaven through good works is Mormon. And God used to be a man like us and so we can become a God like him - also Mormon. We will get to heaven through grace and we can acknowledge our love for our saviour through the intercession of priests and the pope - obviously catholic. The strong arm of social injustice was as prevelant as humans are imperfect. It doesn't matter wether religion ever existed or not. Man would still fight and kill over percieved differences. We are saved by grace alone and can bring others to the truth by establishing a relationship with Christ and allowing ourselves to be used as instruments of His good works. Protestant We don't know where we came from or how we got here but based on our faith in science we are going to refute all faith in religious doctrine. Scientific atheist ala CC.COM. Like I said, to be a good atheist requires a lot of complex reading. Otherwise you are just another ignorant waif waiting to be wafted by the next gust of wind. Seriously though, if you want a good read about why we should be atheists, read Nietze' 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra'. No one says it better.

Last time I checked, you were right. This country was not founded to uphold the practice of religions and I did not say that it was. This country was founded by christians who had a very christian stance on questions of world view. This made for a very different society than had our founders been Hindu or Buddist. Having gone down that road for 200 years, you and all natural US citizens, will be hard pressed to remove all christian dogma from your world view. It is where our world view comes from. This does not mean that we should doggedly stick to a fundamentalist view of things. On the contrary, the Bible says a lot of things that completely contradict most fundamentalist views. I sum it up by asking,"Who would Jesus bomb?"

The amount of wasted energy expended on the debate over evolution vs creationism is rarely if ever exceeded.

Some things in the article Should This Marriage Be Saved? By LAURA KIPNIS are not clearly addressed. Has marriage ever been a "happy" or "blissful" state of affairs? Hardly by my studies of ancient history through the current time. The institution is not there "just to make us happy". It is supposed to be "For better or for worse, through sickness and through health until death do us part". These are VERY tough words. My marraige was hell for a few years here and there. Both of us had to do a lot of changing and both of us thought about divorce now and then. Hopefully, not that many go through our trials but all will be tried hard at some point and only a respect for the institution will hold them together. Or not. Of the happy married couples I know, none would say their first year was easy nor a few here and there after that. All of them, myself included, had a very hard time around the seven year mark. those who make it to fifteen and beyond seem to have a little more communication going on. If not they bust up at around 18 years. After that, the fights still come but the resolutions are easier to come by. I asked a friend at his 50th wedding anniversary what the secret to keeping his marriage alive was. He just laughed and said, If you ever hear a good secret about that, pass it on. It just plain takes a lot of work and a lot of forgiveness on both sides. As far as I can tell, it has been this way for thousands of years.

Ah, but I did not say we should give up on any of them. I asked if we should. I think not. 1. Christianity. As with all organized religions, it has it's good points and it's bad points, both expressions of man. I think the good points out weigh the bad points. Our society is proof that it works. We got here by hook and by crook as did everybody else in history but we are at a pretty good place. We can have this talk without fear of being banned. We can have children and move about freely. As a whole, we take pretty good care of our under priveleged. Although we could do better, there is also something to be said for taking responsibility for where you are. In fact it comes from the Bible. 2. Nuclear families. We need them. Mine wasn't all that good and look how I turned out. People who come from strong nuclear families tend to be more normal in their respective societies. It is the combine effect of all that wisdom and practice interacting. 3. Industriousness. Can't have a country without it. Our welfare situation has created a generation of slackers. Generations have seen their parents get by just by watching TV and living in separate places. Nothing motivational and looking at our side of the fence is a mixed bag of incomprehension, anger, and envy. So what does any of this have to do with Emmhic's great post? Marriage should be encouraged because it fosters stable relationships out of which come morally and ethically sound kids with strong work ethics. Are single people being ripped off by our tax structure? I don't think so. If we stop supporting and nurturing our foundational institutions, we will crumble.

OK then, I'll speak for em. Ta Hell with all your single whinnin and pinin. Married people are ten times more likely to to be PLANNING children. It takes time and planning to "BE READY". Even though you never really are. But, kids are a responsibility that takes a little more than one person has to offer. Ask any single parent. It takes two, and it takes a stable home. Statistically, we are not staying together as long, I know but that has a lot to do with two things. One, the US became a secular society in or around the sixties. This means that morals and ethical principles lost some importance- living for what comes after, as apposed to just for the here and now, became unimportant. Of course there are many non-spiritual people who uphold the highest of moral and ethical standards but they were raised in a society that had a underlying mythology that provided a moral and ethical compass and was originally based in spirituality. Two, mobility created a cosmopolitan society that allowed a broader sense of belonging. In other words, if you screw up your life you just move so your nose doesn't get rubbed in it for the rest of your life. Case in point, my first wife. Gone. Tahoe, last I heard. But these are not excuses. They are side shows. The basis for this society was christianity followed by strong family values followed by industriousness. We are slidin on all three and more so in the last 40 years than before. So should we just give up on 1.Christianity, 2. Strong nuclear families, and/or 3. industriousness? Or do you disagree with everything said above? Discuss.

Out-takes don't count.

Are you channeling Trask?

Don't be so intellctual. If you have an opinion why not put it out there? Especially if you are from the south, I would like to hear a dissenting expose. He already did in a couple of other threads. http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=UBB23&Number=117643&Forum=c1&Words="Clinton"&Searchpage=0&Limit=25&Main=117424&Search=true&where=sub&Name=&daterange=1&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=1&oldertype=y&bodyprev=#Post117643 Cool. That is the kind of stuff I am looking for. I would still like to know what his cases were like. After my 7 mos pregnant wife got rear ended by a teenager doing her makeup, I had a new appreciation for personal injury lawers. We got $5000 without a lawer. My wife still has back problems that she did not have before the accident. But that is murky ground. My point is that, a personal injury lawer is not necessarily a sleaze. Do you have any more detailed links? I would like to see them.

Don't be so intellctual. If you have an opinion why not put it out there? Especially if you are from the south, I would like to hear a dissenting expose.