Religion, explained...

[mrblanche]

OK, maybe not fully...

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01386.png

[jdm124]

OK, maybe not fully...

http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1400/fc01386.png

Perhaps to some more fully than is expected.

I remember reading something by Ved Mehta recalling his days at the Arkansas School for The Blind which touched on that subject. The school had a fairly broad representation of religions and the headmaster who did not wish to favor one over another said something like: "We all believe in God, only we Him from different directions."

In any case, the argument that all religions are correct is likely as good as the one claiming that all religions are wrong (or anything in between).

[robmcg]

and the headmaster who did not wish to favor one over another said something like: "We all believe in God, only we Him from different directions."

In any case, the argument that all religions are correct is likely as good as the one claiming that all religions are wrong (or anything in between).

He who does not have doubt is a fool.

[jdm124]

and the headmaster who did not wish to favor one over another said something like: "We all believe in God, only we Him from different directions."

In any case, the argument that all religions are correct is likely as good as the one claiming that all religions are wrong (or anything in between).

He who does not have doubt is a fool.

Would that apply to steam trains, too, or is it limited to clerical matters?

[robmcg]

Would that apply to steam trains, too, or is it limited to to clerical matters?

Damned trick question, that.

[jdm124]

Damned trick question, that.

We in the US do not deal in trick questions, perhaps some trick answers but our questions are always straight forward.

[robmcg]

We in the US do not deal in trick questions, perhaps some trick answers but our questions are always straight forward.

OK. Here's a straight question: Does the USAF want to bomb Iran?

[jdm124]

We in the US do not deal in trick questions, perhaps some trick answers but our questions are always straight forward.

OK. Here's a straight question: Does the USAF want to bomb Iran?

They don't consult me but I would guess not. I'm sure that there are plans in place for every contingency, including stemming an attack by mad Kiwis.

[Kwozzie1]

They don't consult me but I would guess not. I'm sure that there are plans in place for every contingency, including stemming an attack by mad Kiwis.

Now that would be quite funny considering the wicked witch of the east has wound down their airforce. I think even Iran would know or soon learn about an attack by any other method ;D

[mrblanche]

They don't consult me but I would guess not. I'm sure that there are plans in place for every contingency, including stemming an attack by mad Kiwis.

If the Pentagon waited until the missiles appeared over the horizon to do any planning, then they would deserve the disgust many already feel for them.

[Jim Rose]

>>If the Pentagon waited until the missiles appeared over the horizon to do any planning, then they would deserve the disgust many already feel for them.<<

So, let's just go do it and get Iran out of the way -- You think the pentagon will strike without some higher authority approval or order?

[Eric]

>>If the Pentagon waited until the missiles appeared over the horizon to do any planning, then they would deserve the disgust many already feel for them.<<

So, let's just go do it and get Iran out of the way -- You think the pentagon will strike without some higher authority approval or order?

All this talk has me rather worried; I can see no upside to an attack on Iran (because unlike Iraq, Iran has the wherewithal to fight back - or at the very least, trigger massive disruption in oil supplies, etc.) and many downsides, including the potential use of nuclear weapons, which would be a game ender for us as much as it would be for them.

We are becoming way too trigger happy; war should be an absolute last resort - and only when we face a clear and immediate threat - not some "hypothetical" scenario conjured by The Chimp - or just because we don't like Iran (or whomever).

Containment may not be perfect, but it works - and it's a helluva lot better than the alternative.

[Jim Rose]

>>Containment may not be perfect, but it works - and it's a helluva lot better than the alternative. <<

Iraq was enough proof of that---

[mrblanche]

So, let's just go do it and get Iran out of the way -- You think the pentagon will strike without some higher authority approval or order?

Not at all, but the planning is crucial.

[mrblanche]

>>If the Pentagon waited until the missiles appeared over the horizon to do any planning, then they would deserve the disgust many already feel for them.<<

So, let's just go do it and get Iran out of the way -- You think the pentagon will strike without some higher authority approval or order?

All this talk has me rather worried; I can see no upside to an attack on Iran (because unlike Iraq, Iran has the wherewithal to fight back - or at the very least, trigger massive disruption in oil supplies, etc.) and many downsides, including the potential use of nuclear weapons, which would be a game ender for us as much as it would be for them.

We are becoming way too trigger happy; war should be an absolute last resort - and only when we face a clear and immediate threat - not some "hypothetical" scenario conjured by The Chimp - or just because we don't like Iran (or whomever).

Containment may not be perfect, but it works - and it's a helluva lot better than the alternative.

I think you're worrying about a non-issue, right now.

However, those who know the Iranian military say that it is even less of a concern that the Iraqi military.

[jdm124]

To return to the subject of 'religion' -

Here is proof that Yahweh is alive, well, still in charge, and as mean as ever:

"...

"Over the years, we have all observed the seemingly random factors that affect all of our lives, sometimes without apparent rhyme or reason. We have seen some marriages dissolve over nothing and others grow stronger under adverse conditions. We have seen fate play a role in who survives critical illnesses and who succumbs to them. We have all seen good people suffer great misfortunes while some people of low character thrive. In our lifetime, we have seen Churches and Religious institutions all around the world become revised, televised, energized and even scandalized. We are all well aware that a higher power has control of nearly all things.

"I have studied sacred writings of all major religions searching for an answer, and now I pose the question to you.

"I cannot fathom that the highest power in this universe could take Anna Nicole from us and leave Hillary behind.... "

[Jim Rose]

>>I cannot fathom that the highest power in this universe could take Anna Nicole from us and leave Hillary behind.... "<<

It was done because he/she is pissed at our present leader and wants to show him that it takes very little of anything to do a decent job!

[robmcg]

Perhaps God has a wicked sense of humour?

[jdm124]

>>I cannot fathom that the highest power in this universe could take Anna Nicole from us and leave Hillary behind.... "<<

It was done because he/she is pissed at our present leader and wants to show him that it takes very little of anything to do a decent job!

Since when did Yahweh care about decency? Not that I'm knocking him, mind.

[Jim Rose]

>>Since when did Yahweh care about decency?<<

Never did and probably never will--- at least there is no sign of it happening anytime soon!