On Watch, you people rock! Let's roll! Displacedjim

You complicate things WAY too much.. you believe what your parents/culture told you, and that's all.. same for those who believe in voodoo!!! One thing's for sure, everyone or almost believes in one religion. If you didn't believe in that, you'd believe in something else.. you just happened to be at the time and place to be inculturated by the christian one. THAT'S ALL. And you're gonna repeat that to your children, OF COURSE.. and they're gonna believe it all, although they won't have one percent more evidence that Jesus walked on the water!!!

So you have to interpret what Jesus said depending on the circomstances.. so you're going to say something different than 100 years ago simply because it doesn't "work" anymore.. what the hell is that??? REally really really I don't get it. It doesn't seem complicated to me. The question is this: DID JESUS WALK ON THE WATER OR NOT? We DON'T CARE is the such and such religion has to evolve or whatever!!! The question is : do you have any evidence WHATSOEVER that Jesus did the miracles he is supposed to have done? YES or.. NO? If it is NO, you are just "BELIEVING", that's all! Maybe all this christian thing "seems" to make sense to you, but first of all that's just you.. it surely makes no sense to me, and second of all, even at that, the chances that something that "seems to make sense" really makes sense is MUCH lower than the chances than somebody walks on the water!! I can think of 100 things that "seem" to make sense to me, but since I have no evidence at all, they're most probably false..

What? I proved myself wrong with that??? huh.. Of course people believe because it makes their life easier. If it made it worse, I sure as hell don't see why they would believe in it... Why do people pray in difficult times if it's not because it helps them? mmh???

IMHO, you keep bringing up one good point after another, Hellfire. "...and they're gonna believe it all, although they won't have one percent more evidence..." My argument of religion in general: Where exactly does one draw the line between having faith and believing foolishness?. As far as the arguments about the ancient American tribes vs European beliefs... I have seen no mention of the numbers of deaths because of "european" diseases afflicting the natives of the Americas, everything from plague and smallpox (from the rats brought over on the ships) to syphilis (yes, Cortez and gang, and everyone to come after, had "liberties" with the native women) and other human-transmitted diseases. Has this been another "white man's blight" afflicted on the world that they tend to forget to keep their faithful pride polished, believing that, since they did it in their god's name, it somehow justifies it was OK?.

You desperately want to hold on to arguments that don't hold. So you don't want to defend a religion which defends human sacrifice? And what tells you that human sacrifice is not what God wants? Huh? So you didn't like that religion for whatever reason, and bang, you go to choose another one.. HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU KNOW THAT THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION IS ANY MORE TRUE THAT THE OTHER ONE? Here again, you believe what you want to be true. You tell yourself.. na.. God would not do this or do that, while actually you have NO IDEA.. and bang.. you believe in something else that "makes more sense". FOR SURE IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME!!

I thought das was the neuter article. der=masculine, die=feminine, das=neuter. Interesting thought: in German war is feminine, die krieg..

Okay, you lost me coach. Where does the Tuatha de Dannan come in then? The Fomors? The Red Branch and Ulster sagas? Quit cornfusing me cid..

As a person who participated in (and lost) the policy debate, I feel I know why. My position, that the NK situation was more pressing and delay would insure a nuclear enemy there, was vetoed because Rumsflield believed NK was already nuclear. There really were sound strategic reasons, even if they were not articulated in the public debate. US and UK withdrawall from the Mideast is not a good idea, and letting the Iraqi regime survive was not a good idea either. The war turned out to be a LOT cheaper than I expected - although I forecast victory in 10 days and it took a few days longer - casualties were very low. In a real war, you lose many more in every significant battle than we have lost total. This is almost not a war.

And you should have been. Current political (and social) reality is all that matters in practical policy.