|
Attention: Year 2009 is here
Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Humanist
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 8520
Location: Kentucky, USA
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 6:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| scaredguy wrote: |
Dear Humanist
You have not answered why your dear beloved Bush has not instituted a commission to expose the fact that the kuran is not compatible with the US constitution and shariah with US laws. That would have been a 10-ton punch at the right spot (instead of this 1000-ton punch in Irak). Such a commission would have cost hardly a 100 000 dollars. In stead of that he has helped increase the faked-up muslim feeling that they are the innocent victims (all martyrs) in a satanicl world controlled by the evil non-muslims.
May be you should become president of USA with me as your advisor? If you and Bush both got 96% marks then you are just as good, and with me as advisor you are far better. |
scaredguy, that is a good idea that I become president and you my Sec. of State. My 96 percentile was luck!
Back to the US constitution and sharia law. Bush should do that; however, we all know that he would be piled up with protests from the Politically Correct. The New York Times would have a field day. Plus he should refuse to meet with any Muslim American until they make a firm stand against Terror.
The 9-11 commission really put the finger to the Muslims. It was a good read although it was still politically correct.
_________________
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pilgrim
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 2054
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
This post has two parts, the first is a commentary on Lilith post, yje second some observations on Humanist response to Lilith.
The response to Lilith could be skipped, it is neither important nor relevant to FFI mission, or important issues of secular democracy.
| Quote: |
[quote="Humanist"][quote="lilith"]I've allready seen to many samples here on this forum on the hate christians spread.
It all has very little to do with human rights, but is closer to abolishing human rights.
So that healed me from some sort of 'friendly christian' notion. |
Beware Lilith, don’t get near Pilgrim. Pilgrim might just obliterate your human rights.
| Quote: |
Lilith:
"Feelings are not supposed to be logical. Dangerous is the man who has rationalized his emotions."
-David Borenstein, January 28, 2000 [/b] |
That is Borenstein describing Lilith.
| Quote: |
Lilith:
An apostasized muslim, turning rabidly christian, still has the same cultural biases |
Would that one be Lilith?
| Quote: |
Lilith:
So human rights fighters are turning into a minority on this forum with all this stuff going on as in society. |
They are where you are not.
| Quote: |
Lilith:
Rightwing thinking is showing it's ugliest face in reaction to this threat of "muslims emulating mohammed'. |
Who do you emulate?
| Quote: |
| Lilith:(Christians blame quraan users of stealing from their book. |
Provide the evidence that Quran lifted from the Gospel.
| Quote: |
Lilith:
Well they do the same with the Jewish books. The jewish again with the code of hamurabi. |
I bet you are as good in Geography as in Antiquity.
| Quote: |
Lilith:
But most christians will not acknowledge that they abuse and deform the jewish books.) |
How would you know?
| Quote: |
| And if at all possible, we could finally have a sensible discussion on woman and human rights on this forum. |
As soon as you learn to talk sensible.
Now to the main objective of this post, a commentary on:
| Quote: |
Humanist response to Lilith:
Christian countries came up with free secular societies. That is a fact that remains unique only to Christian societies. With all its faults no other religious groups can make that statement. Of course it took nearly 1,800 years for the process to happen.But in the late 18th Century the United States came up with a secular free society. Free from the Church. Free from Monarchy. Free from divine rights to rule. Then France followed the lead. England changed it government to reflect the secular principles.
|
It is not a coincidence. Secular form of government is direct result of Christianity, rooted in simple words in the gospel, the development of the Christian church, and the struggle of the church to remain independent off secular power. Secularism and plurality have spread beyond the West aided by the West’s rise to preeminence on a global scale.
Before I continue I would like to say that Christianity is a Church, a gathering, a community. It is not possible to understand the Christian Church by observing its fragments individually. To understand it one must look at in entirety. To illustrate, it is not possible to understand America (U.S.) by looking at its fragments. The study of its fragments is instructive and imperative to understanding it in its entirety when the fragments are combined. To grasp America one must look at it in its entirety, the people, the various branches of governments and all its institutions, and its history. The same is true of the Church, the universal, and the denominational.
I am not discussing perfection in a human or an institution. Humans and their institutions are not perfect. They never had, they never are nor will be. But the ideas embraced by a person or a group influence the development and direction over time. While there are good and bad ideas, some are better, one or few are superior, and others are worst, and few extremely inferior.
Could a secular and democratic form of government have happened in a non Christian society?
Maybe, but extremely unlikely, human nature in rulers gravitates to authoritarianism.
I am not a scholar, a historian, or a man of letters to go into all types of details to explain above statements. I only rely on history and historical patterns and trends that had (have) never been broken, except in a Christian atmosphere, since human history was first recorded, and humans started leaving records.
Secular form of government and democracy can not develop when temporal power and ideology (secular or religious) are fused together. This has been always the model of governments since the recording of history was begun. Under such systems, the citizen has no venue to appeal against oppression and injustice because religion (or a secular ideology) and temporal power are fused together in one authority. This continuous model of government was broken in a Christian environment. Let us look at history of governance. Let us look at various ideologies and belief systems and the system of governments that developed under them.
Paganism married ideology (religious) to temporal power. It could not have evolved into a secular democracy. This pattern continued to 1945 in Japan, and to 1960’s in Tibet.
Judaism copied the Pagan system of government, and replaced the many gods, or favored god with one God, then closed upon itself and shut itself from the outside world.
Islam refined the pagan and Judaic model of government into the most draconian authoritarian totalitarianism. Unless they are conquering and ruling over infidels, Muslims become introvert to avoid contamination with the filthy infidel in obedience to Quran and hadith. The Muslims in their self imposed cocoon, and authoritarian totalitarianism repress ideas; they regress and decay.
Modern secular (non traditional religion ideologies) governments that married temporal authority with a secular (and usually anti religious) ideology degenerated into totalitarianism such as the Nazis and Communists.
Only in Christianity, the secular democratic form of governance has had the maximum potential to develop under confluence of right circumstances. There are as I see three reasons for this potential. The first two are simple phrases in the Gospel, Jesus said:
1- My kingdom is not of this world
2- Give to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s.
It is above simple but profoundly unique statements that gave rise to the third reason
3- It is the church’s understanding of its mission in the world, and consequently its struggle to remain independent, and created in the West two unique and independent international orders: the international order of the Church, and the international secular order of the nation states of Europe.
The first two principles are straight forward, although the Western Liberal Left and those influenced by it would disagree based mostly on partisan grounds resulting from incompatibility with Christian church.
The third principle is most difficult to understand especially by those influenced by the Western Liberal Left, which has always been at war with the Christian Church. The Western Liberal Left gravitates toward authoritarian rule and control or eradication of the Christian Church as has been evidenced by historical events starting with French revolution, the Nazis, and the Communists. The church on the other hand has always struggled to remain independent. The fact that the church has had a privileged position at times or a national constitution that stipulated Christian faith of one denomination or another as state faith is the source of the error in judgment and conclusion. Yet it is fact the church (gathering, community, and all its institutions) have been persecuted, sacked, eradicated more often than not. The church and specifically the universal (catholic) church succeeded in preserving its independence. It is this continuous separation of state and church in the West, coupled with the simple but profoundly unique phrase in the Gospel “My kingdom is not of this world; Give to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s” that have created an atmosphere which over time and under confluence of right circumstances gave birth to a secular democracy in the West. The two unique international orders that the Church had created: That of the church and the nation states of Europe facilitated the transfer and spread of ideas among the nation states of the West.
Christianity developed and spread as a grass root movement unattached to temporal powers. Where and when it managed to retain its independence and free off state sponsorship, the church got (gets) persecuted. Always and without exception state sponsorship of ideology whether secular or religious is a road and a scheme to acquire totalitarian authority. Under such system the citizen has no venue to appeal oppression of the state or church since both are one.
The whole Christian Church has not always been successful in fending off attempts by rulers to control it for the purpose of acquiring total power uncontested by an independent and parallel authority. Starting about the 4th century, parts of the church fell under state authority.
The Church in Byzantine Empire came under control of the emperor, although it did maintain a certain degree of autonomy. It was persecuted at times, and at times the emperor used it to solidify his power by attempting to impose religious conformity in conjunction with political uniformity. The Eastern Church eventually splintered into national churches under authority of the king and prince.
Further to the East, the church(s) remained independent and free off state sponsorship. Because of their independence which always goes against the wishes of the ruler(s) they were at times persecuted first by Persian rulers, then almost decimated under Islam especially after the 9th or 10th century.
Western Christianity succeeded through constant struggle with the kings, princes and emperors to remain free off state control. With the schism, the Protestant reformation splintered immediately into national churches, brought about by kings and princes to increase their power by eliminating independent church(s). The temporal rulers were interested in consolidation of power by bringing the national protestant churches under their control. The combined temporal power and religious power in the hands of the ruler(s) increased authority and power of the rulers. They demanded conformity, and persecuted non conformers. They used the added power to make illegal transfer of wealth and property, and above all eradicated church(s) that would not accept to function under state authority. The universal (catholic) church was thus eradicated or reduced to insignificance throughout most northern European countries, because it alone, paused the threat of disrupting the fusion of temporal authority with religious authority. Over time, most national protestant churches reverted partly to the Christian principle of separation of church and state, and regained a great deal of autonomy. Never the less the protestant national churches of Europe remained just another department of state, as was the case with Orthodox national churches.
Part of the Christian church in the West escaped the fate of Eastern churches and Protestant churches, and managed to remain independent through tenacious adherence to principles laid down in the Gospel, and its view of its mission, and struggled to remain independent. At times it and temporal authorities struggled for dominance while still separate, at times the two maintained an uneasy and precarious coexistence, and at times the two cooperated. But frequently the church was persecuted, and sacked because of its refusal to become just another department in the machinery of the state like the department of agriculture, or department of health and human services.
That part of the church, the universal (catholic) church which has remained independent created in Western Europe two unique, and independent international systems; the international system of the church, and the secular international system of the nation state of Europe. The two international orders provided free movement of men and ideas. Churchmen and laymen moved freely throughout Europe. Conflicts among states were always immediately followed upon cessations by restoration of normal relations and flow of men, ideas, and goods.
To summarize above presentation:
1- All non Christian societies lack important ingredients necessary for separation of state and church. All without exception had a form of government that combined temporal power with religious power in the hands of king/god/high priest denying the citizen recourse to petition against oppression and injustice by one or the other. Modern systems that replaced religion with anti religion secular ideology such as Nazism and Communism followed the same model of government.
2- Christianity broke the pagan model of governments due to two simple but profound principles in the Gospel “My kingdom is not of this world; Give to God what is God’s and give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, and the Christian Church remaining faithful to its mission and its success (in the West) to remain independent, and its creation in the West two independent international systems: the international system of the church, and the international system of the nation states of Europe, both of which allowed unhindered movement of men and ideas throughout the Western world.
| Quote: |
| That is a fact that remains unique only to Christian societies. With all its faults no other religious groups can make that statement. Of course it took nearly 1,800 years for the process to happen. |
I do not know if 1800, or 500 or any number of years have any significance. The ingredients were there.
| Quote: |
| But in the late 18th Century the United States came up with a secular free society. Free from the Church. Free from Monarchy. Free from divine rights to rule. Then France followed the lead. England changed it government to reflect the secular principles. |
Men are not perfect, and men compete for influence and privilege, and rulers always aim for maximum authority which comes from combining temporal power with ideology (secular or religious).
The non establishment clause in the U.S. constitution was more to prevent the rulers from controlling the church and forming an uncontested authority. The founding fathers had a fairly good understanding of history, and nature of man, and his tendency to rule unopposed. A church protected from state control would act as a brake on state’s desire to increase its authority by making the church just another department of government.
Monarchy is not synonymous with totalitarianism. The same ingredients that led to secular democracy in U.S. could and have occurred under a republican as well as under monarchist form of government. Constitutional monarchies (with king a titular head of essentially autonomous protestant national churches0 ARE THE NORM IN Europe where monarchies still exist. King/god flourished in Japan till 1945 when it was ended by U.S., and in Tibet till 1960’s when it got terminated by Communist China, and in Thailand where it gradually gave up the godhood part voluntarily recently under Western influence. And totalitarianism combining state and church under republican forms of governments are the norm in all Islamic countries except those with totalitarian monarchies such as Saudi Arabia.
| Quote: |
| Women in the United States are free and even have more rights than men. It took 200 years of amending the laws to do it but we have arrived. Human rights were first set out as law in the United States 200 years ago. Of course they are still being amended, but one day we will be a little closer to getting it right than now. |
It just takes time to change from the time ideas germinate in mind till they spread if they succeed, and take form. But for ideas to circulate and take form of short or long time to effect change, the ingredients that foster change must be present.
Best regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gupsfu
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 6:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Christians aren't Muslims. Although they believe in somthing that secularists don't, most Christians think positively and are far from being a threat to secular societies.
Why do we have to focus on our differences, instead of being friendly toward each other?
Why do we want to suppress the opinions of others that are different from ours?
Can we rightfully say that we're tolerant if we can't even do that?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why reason again to the particualr?
Pilgrim that is what you ask of me.
Than you state that one should look at the whole and can therefore not judge.
Animist societies show a high degree of secularity and democracy and athens was not christian.
Europeans did away with the dark ages and only then was capable of instating a kind of democracy.
Democracy is more suited on a small city state scale and not for countries as f.i. also Aristoteles once said.
A lot of Dutch would say that America is not a democracy.
I'll indeed skip the questions because several threads have dealt with that in extentio.
And I will not disturb the topic.
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gupsfu
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Notice I didn't address my post to anyone.
If you don't agree with what I say, you can just ignore it.
But remember I have a right to express my view just like anyone else.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Humanist
Joined: 04 Sep 2004
Posts: 8520
Location: Kentucky, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lilith wrote: |
Why reason again to the particualr?
Pilgrim that is what you ask of me.
Than you state that one should look at the whole and can therefore not judge.
Animist societies show a high degree of secularity and democracy and athens was not christian.
Europeans did away with the dark ages and only then was capable of instating a kind of democracy.
Democracy is more suited on a small city state scale and not for countries as f.i. also Aristoteles once said.
A lot of Dutch would say that America is not a democracy.
I'll indeed skip the questions because several threads have dealt with that in extentio.
And I will not disturb the topic. |
Well if a lot of Dutch say America is not a democracy, they have their head in the sand. Most know full well that a pure democracy is sort of a mess in that there must be some constrants to pure democracy, but please tell me which country has more freedom than America?
Also, Prilgram please tell me what country had democracy prior to the United States?
_________________
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gupsfu wrote: |
Christians aren't Muslims. Although they believe in somthing that secularists don't, most Christians think positively and are far from being a threat to secular societies.
Why do we have to focus on our differences, instead of being friendly toward each other?
Why do we want to suppress the opinions of others that are different from ours?
Can we rightfully say that we're tolerant if we can't even do that? |
This is for pilgrim too, are you both aware that churches or religions own 12% of all fertile lands on this planet?
So if it would just be a kingdom seperate, I truly wouldn't be bothered.
They are an influence by itself dictating our little lives.
I will try to look at the reasoning and were it crosses the devide from ephemeral into hard currency and laws that will touch upon my life.
So someone believing in jezus and the good word is fine by me or the good intentions of islam, but not even good friends of mine who do so, will be naief enough to not be aware of this other fact.
And they will also scrutinize every word and how it affects their personal life.
My believe is that belief should be a private thing.
The moment it's used by religion(or religious politicians) to defend a political position or course of action, humanity and tolerance of what is different goes out the cupboard.
Because of the vested interest.
this can be skipped:
Pilgrim quote some OT on me will ye. Than tell me if it's from latin, septuagint , quraan or the hebrew original or from Hamurabi.
An eye for an eye f.i.
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gupsfu
Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 7919
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lilith wrote: |
This is for pilgrim too, are you both aware that churches or religions own 12% of all fertile lands on this planet?
So if it would just be a kingdom seperate, I truly wouldn't be bothered.
They are an influence by itself dictating our little lives. |
Personally I see only good in Christians, although some of them are lunatics. Jesus never preached hate, so if there's a hateful Christian that's just the person not the religion.
For whatever reason you feel threatened by Christians, they may feel the same about you too. I've never seen Christians causing problems in modern secular societies. So why not ignore each other and get on with life?
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's untill you have christian parties in your government(messy democracy)that get their way in the debate on a totaly secular society, a motion forwarded by Hirsi Ali, our famous muslimapostate. (meaning the government won't put funding in churches, religious schools, mosques, societes for the furthering of religion etc. or close offensive mosques or church denominations.)
So religion is having an impact on the political decision forming process.
They were dead scared that the secularists would have their revenge that lay in wait since Spinoza. (when i read that one I had to do a double take, on a par with conservative liberals decribing unions as the 'red danger'. I considered them both as total paranoids.)
But the consequence is that we can't avoid a muslimparty from taking over.
A muslima stated: we will keep breeding and importing people untill we form 51% of the populace and than we make Holland an islamic state.
Together with some history on how islam was furthered by all sorts of religious bisshops etc. who frankly gave the world away because they thought that peace was achieved by compliance(or simply taking the bribe) and the selling of land to the highest bidder. After 50 years or so violence and dhimmitude measures ensued anyway. And total islamic control was instated(iraq, egypt,turkey, jeruzalem, a.s.o.)
And the icco(dutch protestant initiativ, a huge development organisation) that funds hamas and has relations with hamas(the lady reporting back on the friendly intentions stated:" I told them that it would be better to make friends and talk with Israel and they smiled."
"Nobody harmed me")
Any reports on christians fleeing from persecution in the territories and especially the region surrounding jeruzalem, are suppressed, and comment denied.
So I can personaly have a favourable view on christans and some muslims and their good intentions but history teaches a different lesson when they are in power.
Too naief to leave your future up to.
Both are conquest religions and frankly they wrecked havoc where ever they went.
Dear Humanist
But what about christian America(and christian Bush) and the rights of minorities?
How much freedom do they have?
We , meaning Holland, used to be the example of freedom, now we have ident laws etc.
But Sweden, Danmark and Norway might still be good examples. Though i would have to read up on that. Green land, iceland.
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi
Last edited by lilith on Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:36 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pilgrim
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 2054
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="lilith"]Why reason again to the particualr?
Pilgrim that is what you ask of me. |
Good evening Lilith,
best regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can be skipped,right 
I'm taking a breather dear pilgrim.
| Quote: |
God gave us noses, to keep us humble,
not to stick in the air, or poke into trouble;
Placed over the mouth to drip and run,
to remind us we're nothin, and He's #1!
|
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dan-Cannon
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Posts: 3144
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 09, 2004 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lilith wrote: |
A lot of Dutch would say that America is not a democracy. |
A lot of Dutch people are anti-Americanists.
I should know because i'm Dutch, and practically everybody i know finds some reason to badmouth the United States. If its not Bush, its their society, their culture, their laws, their politics, their sports, or the consumerism/Capitalism.
Every time any Dutch person i know opens his mouth about America something derogatory in various degrees comes out. I can't remember the last time any Dutchman was as critical of Holland as they are of the US.
As a matter of fact, i can't recall AT ALL any Dutch man or woman i know that simply praised America without throwing in the obligatory asinine remark.
Furthermore, after our little 'assassination' thing in 2002, i think the last people who should open their mouths to say America is not a democracy are the Dutch. A man opposing the clique of Dutch politics, which includes everything from the left to the right, gets character assassinated and then life-assassinated.
That is a democracy?
What exactly is a democracy in Holland when until recently, all you could vote was various shades of left, when even the so-called 'right-winged' VVD-party basically supported the same policies as the left (VVD in Paars)?
When all you can choose is various forms of socialism, what exactly amounts to choices in a so-called democracy?
In my personal opinion, the system should be changed.
2nd chambers should have AT LEAST one chair for every party, and every ideology (except pure fascism) should be represented, regardless of the amount of votes they got in elections.
You can keep it tidy by allowing a maximum of 10 or 15 different parties and i think that way all ideologies can be represented.
In any debate, all ideologies can give their point of view and the general public who keeps track of chamber-debates can see how each ideology would react and deal with current issues. That way at least a better picture would be given about the political choices you can make.
What we got now is small, in some cases new political parties not getting any attention and time whatsoever to come to the public's attention at election time, and all everybody sees is the same old stories from the same old parties. Choosing between status quo and status quo is not something i would call democracy.
At least in America things are more clear-cut. You can vote conservative or you can vote liberal and usually there are miles between them. You can actually make a CHOICE.
| Quote: |
Dear Humanist
But what about christian America(and christian Bush) and the rights of minorities?
How much freedom do they have?
We , meaning Holland, used to be the example of freedom, now we have ident laws etc. |
We also used to be the example of tolerance, and look what state we are in now.
I believe the most popular name for newborn in Amsterdam is "Mohammed" these days.
| Quote: |
| But Sweden, Danmark and Norway might still be good examples. |
Ehh, Sweden's freedoms will soon render it the Islamic Republic of Sweden.
P.S. Lilith, just a question. Can you give me an example of rights that minorities have that majorities don't have?
Either way, can you give me an example of RIGHTS of minorities that are being trampled?
Of course, there is still racism, but i assume you know that is around everywhere and has been in the US under every other president as well.
So i'm genuinely interested in official rights of minorities that are being trampled.
Regards,
Dan.
_________________
Islam is anti-infidel, therefor i am anti-Islam. - Dan Cannon.
I am the greatest minority in the world: an individual. - David Gulbraa. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pilgrim
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 2054
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
First part of this post is to Lilith, it may be skipped, it is neither important nor relavent to FFI. It only has value to Lilith.
[quote]
| Quote: |
| [quote="lilith"]Can be skipped,right |
But you did not!
| Quote: |
| I'm taking a breather dear pilgrim. |
Make it short
Make it medium
Make it long
Golden slumbers kiss your eyes,
Smiles await you when you rise.
Sleep,
pretty baby,
Do not cry,
And I will sing a lullaby.
Cares you know not,
Therefore sleep,
While over you a watch I'll keep.
Sleep,
pretty darling,
Do not cry,
And I will sing a lullaby.
Lil,
I am just begining to have fun.
Just wait for me from now on. Stay tuned and I will keep you entertained.
I will even tell you about the time I stopped in Amestrdam, when Dutch were still Dutch, that is if you are realy what you say you are. Your style, topics, english, depth and breadth do not make you a Dutcman.
| Quote: |
Humanist, posted Sat Oct 09, 04 12.28 pm:
Also, Prilgram please tell me what country had democracy prior to the United States? |
Did I say that?
best regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dan canon that's an option. (For a burkian.)
Not a bad suggestion all present.
Their should also be a possibility to bring a vote on a coalition of choice.
By the way indianfighting is small groups that work in the field. Lessons from the Horn of Africa.
pilgrim, dear;
| Quote: |
If Students Wrote the Bible
nstead of God creating the world in six days and resting on the seventh, He would have put it off until the night before it was due and then pulled an all-nighter.
The Last Supper would have been eaten the next morning--cold.
The Ten Commandments would actually be only five--double-spaced and written in a large font.
New edition would be published every two years in order to limit reselling.
Forbidden fruit would have been eaten because it wasn't cafeteria food.
Paul's letter to the Romans would become Paul's email to abuse@romans.gov.
Reason Cain killed Abel: they were roommates.
Reason why Moses and followers walked in the desert for 40 years: they didn't want to ask directions and look like freshmen.
|
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lilith
Joined: 08 Mar 2004
Posts: 821
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2004 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
unwanted copy
_________________
"You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean;
if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.
Where there is love there is life."
Mahatma Gandhi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
