THOTH

BTW skhara - nice link - thanks. Yeah look who these guys are - you shouldn't be surprised. Its funny in calling for increased defense spending (always self serving - I mean imagine the stock holdings and corporate board positions these guys hold...) - well what they are missing IMO - is how the level of US defense speding disadvantages us as compared to Europe & elsewhere - economically and with the civilian quality of life - ultimatly for the people and the economy it is a burden and one that puts us at competative disadvantage - shame that they fail to acknowledge this...and fail to acknpowledge the comming economic cometition where the US is at risk at being left behind....

well yes & no - though mostly no... Problem is that Pat is (more then a little) bit of a rascist and is a quite a xenphobe. He wants America to close its borders to immigrants, pull out of global obligations (economic in addition to military etc) and to basically cease being a player in the international arena. While many of you here might say hurrah to that...its just not a realistic approach. The world is increasingly integrated & connected - and it pretty much isn't going back - and while there are many issues to this certainly - its basically to peoples benefit. So while I can agree with much of his critiscims (Marx was a good crtic too...) in these articles I can't forget - ultimatly - where he is comming from (and that fundementally Pat is a kook)... Oh yeah - and he hates Jews....for what its worth - so yeah I imagine some of you do like Pat....

Yeah OK - I will - at some point here - where to categorize them is my problem...my taters fer instance....there is actually a story behind them. 15 years ago - wife & I were on our honeymoon down in the Yucatan (4 days in Cozamel followed by a 9-10 day excursion out into/throu the Yucatan jungle cruising the Mayan archeological sites (and a few days in Merida - the capital of Yucatan...) et cetc. Well I think it was in Coba - the largest Yucatan city (discoved only in 1974) - where we stopped at this little place (restaurant) outside of the city - but it was closed....we were starving - had been wandering the site all day - so i ocnvinced the owner to make us something - and he made us "Mayan Fries"! - lol - they were wonderful - taters smothered in cheese & onions!!! So ever since I have been attempting to perfect and add to the recepie...so yeah OK - I'll put in in their somewhere....Oh and after our meal in Coba a bunch of locals came in and some Mexican bus drivers (who were driving a bunch of young French tourists around). It was one of their birthdays and the owner asked us to stay for the party - great fun - lots of rum was consumed and they had guitars and we were all singing. Later the bus drivers had to entertain thier French contingent at the club med (where we also were staying)...my wife - not a big drinker - was pretty much passed out - so I left her in the room and went out to party. The French gals all thought I was another Mexican bus driver!...and they kept buying me drinks and dancing with me...(and trying to bed me! lol)...which I succesfully resisted (being on my honeymoon & all - lol - I probably could have had my choice between 1/2 dozen really cute young French gals...maybe even several at once! - who knows? - shame in hindsight...in a sense...)...still great fun... Oh and I forgot to add about the mustard on that salad dressing (from my prior post) - garlic & parsely!! (so this post is on - topic) - lol

Right on Nairi - exactly - you hit the nail on the head!

floods happen

Another god that I quite like...note here it claims that THOTH was his son... (bold added by me)..oh I voted i don't care in the death penalty poll BTW... ENKI OR EA Ea stands in his watery home the Apsu. Enki walks out of the water to the land. Enki is attended by a god with two faces called Usmu (Isimud). Enki with the Gods and the Initiate. The Water of Life flowing into the aboratory glassware indicates alchemical circulations. Within his sacred precinct 'Mound of Creation' in Eridu, Enki unraveled the secrets of life and death. His emblem was two serpents entwined on a staff - the basis for the winged caduceus symbol used by modern Western medicine. Enki was the god who created the first humans: In those days, in those years, The Wise One of Eridu, Ea, created him as a model of men. His name was Adapa, Adam in the Old Testament: Elohim created the Adam in His image - in the image of Elohim created He him. Enki is a god of water, creation, and fertility (semem). He was once known as En-kur, lord of the underworld, which either contained or was contained in the Abzu. He struggled with Kur as mentioned in the prelude to "Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and the Underworld", and presumably was victorious and thereby able to claim the title "Lord of Kur" The Realm. Enki had a fun loving and mischievous nature. His sacred number is 40. He also holds dominion over the land. He is the keeper of the 'me' - the Divine Laws - the Rules of the Universe. The 'me' were assembled by Enlil in Ekur and given to Enki to guard and impart to the world, beginning with Eridu, his center of worship. From there, he guards the me and imparts them on the people. He directs the 'me' towards Ur and Meluhha and Dilmun, organizing the world with his decrees. Later, Inanna comes to Enki and complains at having been given too little power from his decrees. In a different text, she gets Enki drunk and he grants her more powers, arts, crafts, and attributes - a total of ninety-four 'me'. Inanna parts company with Enki to deliver the 'me' to her cult center at Erech. Enki recovers his wits and tries to recover the 'me' from her, but she arrives safely in Erech with them. Enki was the leader of the first sons of Anu that came down to Earth. He played the pivotal role in saving humanity from the global Deluge. He defied the Anunnaki ruling council and told Ziusudra (the Sumerian Noah) how to build a ship on which to save humanity from the killing flood. Ea would have been over 120 sars old at that time, yet his activity with humanity continued to be actively reported for thousands of years thereafter. Creation of first man by Anunnaki. Laboratory vessels and Tree of Life. Anu sent Enki and his followers to Earth to live. The sons of the gods fell in love with the daughters of men married them and had children by them. Then not wanting their lovers to die they taught them the secrets of immortality that Ea had discovered. Those secrets were the secrets of alchemy. Enki' youngest son was Ningizzida, Lord of the Tree of Truth, in Mesopotamia. He was revered as Thoth in Egypt and Hermes in the West. Thoth is the ancient Egyptian Scribe. As Hermes who is the Magician - the Alchemist. The ancient Mystery School Teachings of Thoth were past down to his Initiates who became the priests. They hid the secret knowledge of creation - and passed it down through the ages. This knowledge of creation is now called Sacred Geometry. It shows reality as a grid program - not unlike the movie matrix - in which we project our consciousness in rder to experperience 2 things - emotions and linear time- for in truth there is no time.

Hah - you accuse me of being condescending - and what have you been here? ANd why shouldn't I be such considering how you have blazed into our forum condemning everyone to hell (if they don't accept your answers...) etc And this seems as good a place as any for this sort of discussion.. Now here is a god worthy of praise - eh? http://www.crystalinks.com/thoth.html

well said...

Well onnig - you believe wrong (and Ludwig - I just don't believe you - sorry - and I'll pass on that sandwhich). Onnig - ever hear of the babylonian exile? And you question whose stories came first...lol. If you were at all familiar with the epic of Gilgamesh - of which the book of genesis is only a pale twisted shadow - you would not claim what you do...and I suspect eve biblical scholars would agree with me here - since there is clear evidence of the Summerian myths far proceeding those of the bible - and if you are familiar with each it is also quite clear who plagerized from who.... and so very convinient how your bible just brings everything together so perfectly (not really) - but for arguments sake...I mean wouldnt it - cosidering how crafted it has been over the centuries (to enslave you...)

that was opponent

LOL...well I can tell you what I made basically...(Chicken) Shish Taoak (from Maral's recpie - using Perdue Chicken tenders....and lots of fresh garlic!), potatoes al Gratin...- Yukon gold and some redskined gold fleshes taters I had lying around (yummy) - boiled up, roughly mashed up then I added a vidalia onion and hungarian hot pepper mix (that I had grilled with pepper and oil) and some Boyjian's garlic and basil oils...then mixed melted jarlesburg and swiss cheese in...most yummy (a big hit)...my own invention BTW...then a aged Balsamic vineger & olive (& basil & garlic oils - as above) - (with French Mustard - frm Provance with parsley & herbs) - and lots of ground black, red and white pepper! etc etc...oh yes - then fresh eggplant - (2 diff kinds) from my neighbors garden - sliced and grilled - basted with (you guessed it) - salt, pepper and garlic & basil oils....plus a wonderful mixed fruit salad....and of course wine...a 99 JJ Prum Rielsing Spatlese (Graacher vinyard on the Mosel)...and an exceptional 98 La Fluer Petrus - Pomerol...nuf said! Yeah - the meal went over well - so well I now have been invited to give cooking lessons! Oh I forgot to add the mix of about 5-6 differnt kinds of peppers I grilled up - mild to very hot (super hot jalapenos!)

I would suggest first starting by reading Joseph Campbell - "hero with a thousand faces" and his "The masks of God" series...as well as just educating yourself a bit in comparative religion. I woudl also suggest reading the Sumerian/Akadian/Babylonian "Epic of Gilgamesh" and the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" (Budgie). I find it amusing how so sure of yourself but how equally ignorant you and other bible thuumpers like you are...about nearly everything seemingly - but mostly concerning religion... Let's not get too personal - nairi

I prepared a large meal for visiting relatives this last Saturday and nearly every dish (except the fruit salad) had garlic in it (hows that)...I did warn everyone in advance...all quite enjoyd the food BTW....

LOL - touche...but you should know me by now...I always bring plenty...

lol - yes I do recall this now...I hate to say it - but it seems more likely then what is commonly portrayed (by the do-good Christian types) - at least form empiricle evidence...and by onnigs admissions....I'm not really so worried though - at least not abotu divine punishment of any sort...I'm more worried about the kooks and religious nuts who are running around everywhere....they are downright dangerous (and possesing of no real [earthbound] morality...)....onward Christian soldiers...as it were...

no fair.....now is it right to speak badly about someone even if they don't understand what it is you are saying? And just what are you saying? I can't imagine you are making a case that I don't merit the position? no....

February 4, 2004 What Are We Doing in Russia's Neighborhood? by Patrick J. Buchanan Napoleon III, Emperor of France, saw his opportunity. With the United States sundered and convulsed in civil war, he would seize Mexico, impose a Catholic monarchy and block further expansion of the American republic. In 1863, a French army marched into Mexico City. In 1864, Maximilian, the brother of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, was crowned Emperor of Mexico. The French empire had returned to North America a century after its expulsion in 1763. Secretary of State Seward did nothing until the Union armies had defeated the Confederacy. Then, he called in Gen. John Schofield, who had wanted to lead an army of volunteers into Mexico to drive the French out, and instructed him instead to go to Paris. "I want you to get your legs under Napoleon's mahogany and tell him he must get out of Mexico," Seward told Schofield. To impress upon Napoleon that the Union was in earnest, President Johnson, at the urging of Grant and Sherman, sent Gen. Sheridan with 40,000 troops to the Rio Grande. Napoleon got the message. The French army headed for the boats, and Maximilian went before a Mexican firing squad. Lesson: Nations are unwise to seize upon the temporary weakness of a great power to put military forces inside its sphere of influence. Which brings us to this headline in last week's Washington Post: "U.S. May Set Up Bases in Former Soviet Republics." The lead graph reads like something out of the London Times in the salad days of Kipling and Queen Victoria: "Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that the United States might establish military bases in parts of the former Soviet empire, but he sought to reassure Russians that increased U.S. influence in the region does not pose a threat to them." With bases already in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, we apparently intend to build a base in Georgia, birthplace of Stalin. Query: What are we doing there? What is the strategic interest in Georgia? Tbilisi is about as far away as one can get. Why are we rubbing Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat by putting U.S. imperial troops into nations that only yesterday were a part of that country? Powell anticipated the question: "Are we pointing a dagger in the soft underbelly of Russia? Of course not. What we're doing is working together against terrorism." But after Iraq, where we invaded an oil-rich country on what the world believes were false pretenses and forged evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why should Russians not suspect our motives? After all, the neoconservatives who beat the drums loudest for war, and cherry-picked the intelligence sent to Bush that got us into war, have been braying for years that we intend to create an American empire and impose our "benevolent global hegemony" on all mankind. Why should Russians, Chinese and Iranians not believe America's crusader castles in Central Asia and the Caucasus are not part of a grand scheme for a Pax Americana? Have we forgotten our history? When Reagan put Marines into the middle of Lebanon's civil war, 241 perished in the terrorist bombing of their Beirut barracks. Reagan retaliated, but got out. He should never have gone in. Who runs Beirut or rules Lebanon is not our business. When we intervened in Somalia's civil war, we got "Blackhawk Down" in Mogadishu and 18 dead Rangers. Again, we pulled out. We should never have gone in. When we planted a U.S. army on Saudi soil after the Gulf War, we got 9-11. Now we have pulled out of there. How often must we be taught the lesson? Have we considered the consequences of planting military bases in countries afflicted by Islamic fundamentalism and ruled by autocrats who, only 15 years ago, were apparatchiks of Moscow? A U.S. imperial presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus resented by Russia, Iran and China and detested by Islamists is less likely to contain terrorism than to invite it. Even a cursory reading of U.S. history shows us to be an almost paranoid people about any foreign military presence near our frontiers. The French, British, Spanish and Russians were all bought off or driven out. Moscow's presence in Cuba and meddling in Grenada and Nicaragua in the Cold War were constant causes of American outrage. But if we are entitled to our own Monroe Doctrine – i.e., no foreign colonies or bases in our backyard – are not other great nations like China and Russia equally entitled? Why should they not feel as we do, and one day act as we did with Napoleon, and tell us to get out of Central Asia and to get out of the Caucasus? But, again, why are we going in? Other than empire, what is the vital interest here? COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

June 21, 2004 The Wrong War by Patrick J. Buchanan There exists "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." There were contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but "they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." In 1994, Baghdad rebuffed approaches from bin Laden to establish terrorist training camps inside Iraq. So the 9-11 commission has concluded. And so, with no weapons of mass destruction yet found after 18 months of searching, the second pillar of the president's case for war falls to earth. Iraq was an unnecessary war. Yet, now we have 138,000 soldiers there, with casualties mounting, the cost rising and the hostility to America's presence growing. Every attack on U.S. troops or contractors, even when they involve Iraqi dead and wounded, seems to be cause for jubilation. Yet, George Tenet of the CIA excepted, the men who told President Bush the war was necessary, that it would be a "cakewalk," that the Iraqis would welcome us with candy and flowers and take to democracy like kids to ice cream are still in place, still in power. In his now-famous 2002 State of the Union, President Bush named Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil." He vowed that America would not allow any one of the three to acquire weapons of mass destruction. In 2003, we attacked and invaded the only one of the three that did not have a secret nuclear program. And since that State of the Union, the other two have accelerated their programs to acquire the atomic weapons President Bush said they would not be permitted to have. At this point, the Bush Doctrine has to be judged a limited success. Given the mess in Iraq, neither the American people nor the White House appears to have the desire or will to force an end to the Iranian or North Korean bomb programs. The Iranians, who are threatening to crash the Nuclear Club, are bristling with defiance. Tehran seems to have concluded that America has no stomach for another war. Tehran may be right. But if North Korea already has an atomic bomb and Iran will not be stopped from acquiring one, what does a new world of 10 nuclear nations, six of them in Asia, mean for U.S. foreign policy? We had best begin to consider the possibility. No nation that has acquired nuclear weapons has ever been invaded – for a reason. The strategic base camp for any Normandy, Inchon or Desert Storm invasion could be turned into an inferno in minutes by atomic weapons. This suggests that in confronting a nuclear-armed North Korea or Iran, U.S. Army and Marine bases in South Korea and Kuwait, and U.S. naval bases on Okinawa and on the south shore of the Persian Gulf are becoming strategic hostages and not strategic assets. Put bluntly, if Pyongyang and Tehran acquire atomic weapons, there are no more axis-of-evil nations with which we can risk war. For there is nothing to be gained from such a war to justify running the risk of nuclear retaliation on U.S. bases in Asia or the Middle East, or on Israel, an almost certain target in any war with Iran. During the Cold War, both sides accepted outrages that might have been casus belli before atomic weapons. The United States did not use on Chinese armies in Korea overrunning our troops the weapons Truman unhesitatingly used on Japanese cities. For Stalin, too, now had the bomb. Nor did we intervene to halt the massacre of Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956, or the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961. Carter's response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a wheat embargo and a boycott of the Moscow Olympics. Moscow, too, was inhibited from taking action in Berlin, where it was strong, when the United States used tactical and theater superiority to force the Soviet missiles out of Cuba. And Moscow also failed to respond to Reagan's seizure of Grenada and aid to the Afghan resistance. As they used to say in the West, "God may have created all men, but it was Sam Colt who made them equal." Nuclear weapons are the great equalizers. They concentrate the mind of a statesman wonderfully. And with North Korea and Iran plodding along toward the building of these awful weapons – in blatant defiance of the Bush Doctrine – the president and Sen. Kerry should be thinking about the world that will exist in the next presidential term. For by the end of that term, Iran and North Korea could both be full-fledged members of our nuclear fraternity. If they are, the idea of an American empire will become as outdated as the British Raj. COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

August 23, 2004 Neocons Seek Vindication in Escalation by Patrick J. Buchanan "The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." This is the heart of the Bush Doctrine from the president's "axis of evil" address to Congress. And the nations that constituted that axis were Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Under this doctrine, Iraq was invaded, Saddam overthrown and his army disbanded, though we have yet to find any of the "world's most destructive weapons." With North Korea, the train has left the station. Pyongyang can now produce nuclear weapons and may possess half a dozen. For nations like North Korea and men like Kim Jong Il do not build costly and complex ballistic missiles simply to throw conventional explosives across an ocean. Which leaves Iran. With Moscow's assistance, Tehran has been constructing a nuclear power plant at Bushehr. Once operational, Bushehr will, like Yongbyon in North Korea, yield plutonium as a byproduct. Last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency also stumbled on a secret uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. Its centrifuges were found to contain traces of weapons-grade uranium. Highly enriched uranium, U-235, is a component of atomic bombs. Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima, had a uranium core. Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki, had a plutonium core. Lately, an effort by Russia, France and Germany to have Iran open up its nuclear plants to inspection has been rebuffed by Tehran. Having seen how America dealt summarily with Iraq, but proceeds gingerly with North Korea, Tehran has likely concluded that when a superpower is threatening preemptive strikes and preventive war, only nuclear weapons can deter it. Those who do not have such deterrents get the Saddam and Taliban treatment. So it appears that the decisive test of the Bush Doctrine will come in Iran. And that test is probably not far off. The Israelis have reportedly practiced strikes on Iran by crossing Turkish airspace and have special forces in the Kurdish regions of Iraq. There are rumors Sharon has told the White House that if we do not effect the nuclear castration of Iran, Israel will do the surgery herself, because she cannot live under the cloud of an atomic bomb in the possession of the patrons of Hezbollah. Enter the "cakewalk" neoconservatives. Though disastrously wrong about Iraq's receptivity to U.S.-imposed democracy, and though they face disgrace and oblivion if Bush loses, they have one last card to play: That is to have America widen her wars with Afghanistan and Iraq with a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. For the neoconservatives, Iraq was simply Phase II of "World War IV" for imperial domination of the Middle East and serial destruction of the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority. The neocons have not abandoned this imperial project. Nor has Bush removed a single one from power, though they may yet cost him his presidency. And the neoconservative commentariat is again beating the drums for war – this time on Iran. This is their hole card. If they can ignite a new war, the country may forget how they bungled the old war. In escalation lies vindication. And, in truth, Iran is a matter the president and Pentagon must address. Can we live with an Iranian atom bomb, which will restrict U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and likely lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Arab world? Or is Iran the place where the Bush Doctrine must be applied, even if it ultimately requires U.S. air and missile strikes on Iran's nuclear sites? Given the overstretch of U.S. forces, the invasion and occupation of a nation three times as large and populous as Iraq is off the table. And what would be the probable result of America launching air strikes and starting yet another fire in the middle of the world's gasoline station? Tehran would likely retaliate by sending fighters into Iraq, stirring up Shia guerrillas in the south, aiding anti-American warlords in Afghanistan, sponsoring terror attacks on U.S. citizens and inciting Hezbollah to refire the Lebanon front. We could find ourselves in a third war with no allies save Israel. Another consequence could be the disruption of oil shipments from Iran, Iraq and the Gulf, a run-up in prices to $60 or $70 a barrel, and recessions in Japan, Europe and the United States. Presently, America and her European allies appear to be moving toward Security Council sanctions if Iran does not render hard assurances it is not going nuclear. But if the mullahs have concluded their only defense against U.S. or Israeli preemptive strikes is a deterrent of their own – a not unreasonable assumption given what happened next door – we are headed for a showdown that will change our world forever. COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

June 30, 2004 Three Steps to Sanity by Patrick J. Buchanan June 28, the day in 2004 that the Americans transferred sovereignty to Iraqis and proconsul Paul Bremer hastily departed Baghdad, is a day freighted with historic significance. On June 28, 1914, 90 years before, Serb nationalist Gavrilo Princip fired the shots that killed the Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand and led, five weeks later, to World War I. On June 28, 1919, German representatives, their country under an Allied starvation blockade, prostrate before a threat by Marshal Foch to march on Berlin, signed the Versailles treaty that ended World War I, and set the stage for Hitler and World War II. Seen as an Allied triumph in 1919, Versailles proved a disaster. Thus, it is a good time to attempt to draw up an interim profit-and-loss statement of what President Bush has accomplished in what he calls the "War on Terror." Who is winning this war? To answer that question, we must first ask and answer antecedent questions. What is the war about? What are we fighting for? Who, exactly, is the enemy in this war? What is he fighting for? Since 9-11, the president's objectives have been to exact retribution for the massacre, overthrow the Taliban enablers of Osama, run al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan, remove Saddam, disarm Iraq and defend America. He has attained them all. Yet, 54 percent of Americans believe invading Iraq was a mistake. The nation understands that something has gone wrong. The nation is right. For what this war is really about is who shall rule in the Islamic world. Will it be the men who share our views and values? Or will it be True Believers who will purge that world of what they see as our odious and corrupt presence? What our enemies seek in the great Sunni Triangle from Rabat to Chechnya to Mindanao is what the Iranian Revolution achieved: to be rid of the Americans and of rulers that they view as vile puppets of the United States, to purify their societies and to unite their world against the West. If this is indeed the ultimate goal of the radical Islamists, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a strategic victory for the enemy. Consider what has happened as a result of our war on Iraq. An enemy of Islamic fundamentalism, Saddam, has been removed. His secular Ba'ath Party is gone. A vacuum has opened up in Iraq that the Islamists and their allies may one day fill. The Arab world has been radicalized and supports the Iraqi resistance in its drive to defeat and expel the Americans. The destabilization of the Saudi monarchy through terror has begun. Rulers in Arab countries have been forced to distance themselves from the Americans if they wish to retain the support of their people. Western tourists are staying away from the Middle East, Western investment is on hold, and Western workers have begun to depart Saudi Arabia and Iraq. "There exists today a hatred of Americans never equaled in the region," Egyptian President Mubarak told Le Monde. "In the beginning, some people thought the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred toward Americans. After what happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it." This longtime friend added, "American and Israeli interests are not safe, not only in our region but in other parts of the world, in Europe, in America, anywhere in the world." The war on Iraq into which his neoconservative advisers prodded the president seems to have ignited the very "war of civilizations" between Islam and America that the president said he wanted to avoid. Raised to believe in the innate goodness of America and the nobility of her purposes, President Bush finds it hard to believe the best recruiting tool al-Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents have is the presence on Iraqi soil of the U.S. soldiers he sent to "liberate" Iraq. Of late, the president appears to have begun to understand that our presence is a primary cause of the war of resistance and that, when this phase ends, the real war, the civil war to decide which Iraqis rule in Iraq, begins. Will it be Iraqis who wish to belong to the modern world? Or Iraqis who wish to be part of the anti-American Islamic revolution? War, Clausewitz reminded us, is but the extension of politics by other means. All wars, even wars in which terror is the weapon of choice of the enemy, are about, as Lenin said: "Who? Whom?" Who shall rule whom? And even in an Arab world where monarchs and autocrats now rule, the victors will be those who win the hearts and minds of Arab peoples. This is the war we are losing. And to win this struggle, the United States needs to do three things that may go against the political interests of both parties: Stand up for justice for the Palestinians. Remove our imperial presence. Cease to intervene in their internal affairs. We Americans once stood for all that. And if we go only where we are invited, we would be invited more often to come and help. COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC

While I can agree with your interpretation - of what it seems Jesus (if he did exist) was up to - verus what Paul has transformed the religion into...I still think that there is quite a good reson to be skeptical that such a person ever did exist. No matter - an educated person would understand how this religion developed - what it owes to the "classical" religions from the greeks, Sumarians and Egyptians - what it (and Judaism before it) took form these and how it corrupted and manipulated many of the meanings of these original stories to justify belief sets and practices an dprohibitions much different from those esposed by the earlier religions. Chistianity is not original for the most part but highly related to and derivitive of earlier religions. And much that is (arguably) somewhat original (much of the new testament stuff...still much derivitive of course...) - is really quite questionable - faniciful, overly complex and not in accordnace with any real human values (and look at all the schisms and heresies and disagreements that have arisin through the ages). I'm not arguing against the basic messages of Christ - for the most part they are good messages - but the constructs and the rules & penalties ets etc - and then of course the unscientific and what have you conclusions and prounoucements about the nature of things.....yeah hang Gallileo & Coprinicus why don't you ...etc yeah...

Christ is a ficticious personage that never existed... The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold by Acharya S The Christ Conspiracy" contains over 1200 footnotes that cite archaeological, historical and literary documentation by a wide variety of sources, including many Christian authorities extending back to the beginning of the Christian era. The book is a scholarly work that presents scientific analysis and facts, not "opinions." The dating of the gospels to the last quarter of the second century is based on the work of Judge Charles Waite, Book Description Controversial and explosive, The Christ Conspiracy marshals an enormous amount of startling evidence that the religion of Christianity and Jesus Christ were created by members of various secret societies, mystery schools and religions in order to unify the Roman Empire under one state religion! This powerful book maintains that these groups drew upon a multitude of myths and rituals that already existed long before the Christian era and reworked them into the story the Christian religion presents today-known to most Westerners as the Bible. Author Acharya makes the case that there was no actual person named Jesus, but that several characters were rolled into one mythic being inspired by the deities Mithras, Heracles/Hercules, Dionysus and many others of the Roman Empire. She demonstrates that the story of Jesus, as portrayed in the Gospels, is nearly identical in detail to those of the earlier savior-gods Krishna and Horus, and concludes that Jesus was certainly neither original nor unique, nor was he the divine revelation. Rather, he represents the very ancient body of knowledge derived from celestial observation and natural forces. A book that will initiate heated debate and inner struggle, it is intelligently written and referenced. The only book of its kind, it is destined for controversy. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books The Jesus Puzzle. Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? : Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus by Earl Doherty Why are the events of the Gospel story, and its central character Jesus of Nazareth, not found in the New Testament epistles? Why does Paul's divine Christ seem to have no connection to the Gospel Jesus, but closely resembles the many pagan savior gods of the time who lived only in myth? Why, given the spread of Christianity across the Roman Empire in the first century, did only one Christian community compose a story of Jesus' life and death-the Gospel of Mark-while every other Gospel simply copied and reworked the first one? Why is every detail in the Gospel story of Jesus' trial and crucifixion drawn from passages in the Old Testament? The answer to these and other questions surrounding the New Testament will come as a shock to those who imagine that the origins of Christianity and the figure of Jesus are securely represented by Christian tradition and the Gospels. With the arrival of the third millennium, the time has come to face the stunning realization that for the last 1900 years, Christianity has revered a founder and icon of the faith who probably never existed. An entire faith movement, one of the world's major religions, is assumed to have been launched by those Gospel events. Yet if that were indeed the reality of history, we would face a profoundly astonishing situation. For the fact is, the story which presumably began so much is to be traced back to a single document, to the literary efforts of what may well have been a single individual. We have already seen that until the time of Ignatius early in the second century, no one in the non-Gospel Christian record speaks of a trial and crucifixion by Pilate, of a death in Jerusalem or a rising from a tomb in that location. Moreover, contrary to popular belief, Mark himself has no corroboration. Christian tradition for the better part of two millennia has regarded the four Gospels as independent accounts of the events of Jesus' life and death, by persons in the know, providing a fourfold witness to those events. Most Christians today still believe that. But New Testament scholars know better, and they've known it for almost two centuries. They have come to realize that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, rather than being independent corroborations, are direct copies of Mark. Matthew reproduces almost 90% of Mark in his own text, Luke over 50%. As for the passion itself, those two later evangelists have shaped their accounts exactly as Mark did, with only a couple of minor alterations and additions. Even the extra source used by both, the Q document, had nothing to add to their passion story, since Q contained not a word about a trial, death and resurrection. It is as though Matthew and Luke knew nothing about the events at the end of Jesus' life, the events which brought salvation to the world and triggered the great explosion that became Christianity, until they encountered a copy of the Gospel of Mark. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/store...#09686014053200

whats that about the brides maids and your list? yeah - please do tell... (draw a picture if you have to...if words fail you...)

Whats that Ed? What wine would I recommend to compliment Heinz's finest?

That damn Satan - trying to convince people that they are good and that there is no hell...what an enemy of the people. BTW - the serpent of the bible is esentially the same being/personage as Poseidon/Neptune, Enki, THOTH and other god figures who dared to give humans knowledge here-to-for only the purview/benefit of the gods. So he is a hero who has taken the side of humanity against its oppressors/slavers. So at his core the Christian god is evil. He feys love for us when every eveidence is of mockery and torture. He places essentially unacheivable (against human nature) goals when he knows that the vast majority of humanity will not meet the requirementts and will thus be condemned to his tortures. That he is all knowing and all powerful yet allows this is eveidence of his depravity. (Onnig - what % of people in the world today are Christians [and what of those who exist and have existed in ignorance of christ?]...and you do agree Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Confucianist, Daoists etc etc are all going to hell - yes - as they do not accept Christ as Lord and Savior). And what is the knowledge given to Adam & Eve...their nakedness...desire for the opposite sex....knowledge of sex....yeah thats bad. (and punishible with eternal death & suffering) I am picturing heaven as in the Matrix - where god has everyone lying in a blissful state - doing no wrong - while his engines/batteries are all powered off of their uneeded energies....I can hear the heavenly chorus (humming of machinery) now....