Well, we usually have a very vocal board, wonder why no one has statred on...

[Cavern Sniffer]

I still think quoting the bible is a lost cause. Theological debate aside, for the layman the contradictions (real or imagined) are just too much to take on board imho.

Changing tack, regarding Icelandic people. I just watched a programme regarding them and their input into the world of genetic/DNA research. Apparently they are the most genetically pure (meaning their genetic make up can be traced back) race on the planet. Don't know how true it is but it was very convincing, I can't do the programme justice sadly.

------------------
It's bleedin dark down here, slippery too.
Man, that's a pisser.

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Cavern Sniffer: I still think quoting the bible is a lost cause. Theological debate aside, for the layman the contradictions (real or imagined) are just too much to take on board imho. Changing tack, regarding Icelandic people. I just watched a programme regarding them and their input into the world of genetic/DNA research. Apparently they are the most genetically pure (meaning their genetic make up can be traced back) race on the planet. Don't know how true it is but it was very convincing, I can't do the programme justice sadly.

Yes, I remember hearing that on Radio some time back. Very interesting. I believe they can trace records right back to the original settlers, and genetic research proves the records correct.

As for quoting the bible, Cavern Sniffer - stop spoiling my fun! I LOVE arguing with Yorick! (but, shhhh!! Don't let on! )


------------------

[Sazerac]

How in the WORLD did we get onto religion here??

That notwithstanding, there is a lot of evidence in other literature other than Christianity that points to a later avatar overturning the ruling of a former avatar's fiat.

The Dalai Lama of Thibet is considered to be the incarnate Soul of the first Buddha, who ever returns to the world of Maya (earth) until all of his brothers are freed of the wheel of karma and rebirth. Anyway, as the anecdote goes, the thirteenth Dalai Lama (the one back in the 1930's, I think), was overturning some fiat of the 5th Dalai Lama, and the Buddhist monks were up in arms about it, arguing with him and pointing out that the 5th Dalai Lama had made strict rulings about the issue (whatever it was, some tenet of Buddhist practice). Whereupon the 13th Dalai Lama roused himself and said to them, "And just WHO was the 5th Dalai Lama?"

The monks immediately prostrated themselves before him. They had quite forgotten that as the repeated incarnation of Buddha, the 13th Dalai Lama was not only the 5th, but all previous incarnations as well, and as such, had full rights to change or abrogate any of his previous fiats, albeit from several centuries before.

Maybe such logic applies to the Old Testament/New Testament thing as well.

[Gaelic]

When guns are outlawed, law abiding people will not have them. Criminals will! Then they will use them as they choose and leave people defenseless. Thus, I can't support getting rid of them. It is my duty to defend my family the best way possible. Two years ago, someone tried to get in my front door at night. I picked up my gun and waited. He then tried my bedroom window. I moved to that window, which was covered by curtains. I held the gun near the window, slapped the magazine in, and chambered a round. I heard the bushes rustle, and I went to the front door and had my wife lock me out. The little bastard was gone, but for the footprints he left. He was scared off by my gun. Nobody was hurt.

Second, all these examples of kids mis-using guns are EXACTLY the problem. Again we blame the inanimate object instead of the irresponsible people who own the guns, but don't teach their kids about them and keep them appropriately secured. The blame belongs there.

Third, it frightens me to hear the idea of getting rid of "Soldier of Fortune" and such. While we are doing that, why don't we get rid of "High Times," and all the garbage, liberal rag newspapers out there. SoF does not advocate anything illegal, while "High Times" does (whether you agree with the law or not, dope is illegal). Why not get rid of those? Because we have certain rights in this country. They are protected by people...people with guns.



------------------
Gaelic

[Gaelic]

Sorry, I have to add one additional note. I live in an oceanfront, tourist city. Around 10 years ago, or so, there was a group of people who gathered here on Labor Day weekend to party. It was a gathering of a certain type of fraternity and sorority and it was called "Greek-fest." Long story short, people got crazy, started stealing things and vandalizing, so shopkeepers on the oceanfron "strip" began to close up shop. Riots ensued. The police were WAY outnumbered. The shopkeepers with guns defended their shops, and shot no one. Those without guns were robbed and beaten. The same thing happened the next year. The year after, the national guard was there to stop it and those people never returned.

If I had owned a shop down there, I would have been one that made it through without a beating.

------------------
Gaelic

[This message has been edited by Gaelic (edited 06-15-2001).]

[caleb]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: Nah! Don't agree at all! Yes, your points are valid, in so far as they go. The OT was for the Jews, the NT was for all mankind who wanted it. Laws differ for different situations/people. Seems fine until you think about it. But scripture says 'god does not change' and that there are 'two unchangeable things, his word and his law'. The two statements quoted above - eye for eye/turn the other cheek - are diametrically opposed, regardless of circumstances, and are totally at odds with god being 'unchanging'. Take a look at the attitudes in the OT. Compare with attitudes in the Book of Revelation. You will see the same god. Take a look at the 4 gospels and you will see a person who is SO unlike the OT/Revelation god it is no wonder the Jewish reliious heirachy hated him! Jesus was a nice bloke. God was not. Their attitudes opposing are clarified by the eye for eye/turn the other cheek statements. IMHO! Oh, and actually the NT no more speaks of man's future in heaven than the OT does. SOME were to go to heaven, MOST were to 'inherit the earth and dwell forever upon it'

Yeah well...your just wrong! yeah beat THAT argument

------------------


BOW TO THE BISCUIT KING AND HIS THRONE OF SCONE!!!

"When guns are outlawed, law abiding people will not have them. Criminals will!"

is not really true as few crimals in britain have guns, those few that do mainly use them on each other. A culture where guns are freely availible means that criminals will get guns to defend themsevles from people who have guns to defend themselves from burglers who have guns to the defend themselves from etc etc etc, its a self fuffiling phrophecy of violence. Also people waveing guns about is exactly the kind of thing anti-captilist protestors want, so they can provoke people and polarise opinons and actions. And its not people with guns who defend your rights its politicians,lawyers and civil rights groups in fact to suggest that guns somehow defend your rights is to make a mockery of politics where deeds are accomplished with words not guns.

[This message has been edited by Dramnek_Ulk (edited 06-16-2001).]

[caleb]

Yea its the same as the nuclear deterrance theory "they have nukes so I gotta get some too then they wont use em on me" it would be better if everyone just dumped em but of course its not gonna happen.

------------------


BOW TO THE BISCUIT KING AND HIS THRONE OF SCONE!!!

[Gaelic]

Originally posted by caleb: Yea its the same as the nuclear deterrance theory "they have nukes so I gotta get some too then they wont use em on me" it would be better if everyone just dumped em but of course its not gonna happen.

Like it or not the "Mutually Assured Destruction" concept is what has guided nuclear policy WORLDWIDE since nukes were invented.

I don't believe it is a self fulfilling prophecy that proliferates guns. It is the real desire of people to defend themselves. Many, many studies of criminals show that they stay away from people who may be armed. They pick easier marks, marks who have chosen not to defend themselves. I have elected not to be defenseless. I have chosen to maintain the ability to defend my family and my home. Guns will never be outlawed in the US. There are too many of us who will fight to maintain this right.




------------------
Gaelic

[Fljotsdale]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: "When guns are outlawed, law abiding people will not have them. Criminals will!" is not really true as few crimals in britain have guns, those few that do mainly use them on each other. A culture where guns are freely availible means that criminals will get guns to defend themsevles from people who have guns to defend themselves from burglers who have guns to the defend themselves from etc etc etc, its a self fuffiling phrophecy of violence. Also people waveing guns about is exactly the kind of thing anti-captilist protestors want, so they can provoke people and polarise opinons and actions. And its not people with guns who defend your rights its politicians,lawyers and civil rights groups in fact to suggest that guns somehow defend your rights is to make a mockery of politics where deeds are accomplished with words not guns. [This message has been edited by Dramnek_Ulk (edited 06-16-2001).]

Well said, Dramnek! It is amazing how people can be so blind to reality when they are defending a 'right'. But we all do it! If we are determined not to 'see' something, nothing will convince us!
We will never convince the gun lobby that they are wrong, and they will likewise never convince us that their stance is other than misguided. Common sense, sadly, does not enter into the equation.

------------------