[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
However, there is one flaw in your hypothesis. According to it, only "Christian" nations will be successful. Explain a nation like Singapore then.

Singapore used to belong to a Christian nation.
It would have been better to mention Japan.


My views? Ignoring Empirical ownership and the culture transfer which that brings, it's geographic and lingual.

Geography:
Necessity is the mother of invention. If you're sitting in a country where you need to think about how to get your food or keep warm, you're gonna be more inventive. If you're sitting in a country where you can just sit on the beach waiting for a coconut to drop, you're not going to be getting into inventive thinking much. Winter is good for inventiveness.
Additionally, sunlight hits your forehead and you feel relaxed and contented. Your inventive productivity lowers as a result.

Lingual:
You think in your native language. This creates a wide difference between peoples of different countries (I'm generalising but: i.e. Germans more precise, Italians more fiery, Spanish more lazy). Combine this with the above geographical theory and you'll start to notice things: Like a Senegalese guy is pretty much a lazy French guy.

Or something like that.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
If you're sitting in a country where you can just sit on the beach waiting for a coconut to drop, you're not going to be getting into inventive thinking much. Winter is good for inventiveness.

bwahahahhahaaa!

that's why the innuit invented computers and rocket science...

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm sorry to hear this Simple Life. I can't be clear enough when I tell you I am Christian and am by no means a murderer. To clarify, in what manner did 'good Christians' decimate part of your ancestory? In other words, as difficult as it may be; could you elaborate?

Ask your First Nations for example. Then let us do a tour of all the Americas. Then let us have a look at Africa. These are some examples.

I think the thread was posed as a question. While IDJEff may feel that our Christian heritage has brought about prosperity; I might say our Christian heritage has helped produce a system of governing that has led to prosperity.

Through oppression and genocide. In the end, religion may have been a strong tool to help people unite behind a belief, but that belief was accessory to murder.

I think if you read my post at all Simple Life you'd know that the psychosis is indeed yours exclusively. You have confused me with someone else.

Your "psychosis, as I referred to it, is in direct relation to your own comment:

Sounds like you may be taking a few things for granted my friend. You might know a great many of those living in nations not governed by representative democracy, appreciate the concept of popular vote. They'll risk they're lives for it. They'll produce turnouts the US could only dream of. Why? Because they have not been capable of reaching the level of ingratitude you so eloquently displayed above.

Do not make the mistake of taking the capacity to vote as the definite trend of "Blessed" Christian Democracies, because the very same Christian Democracies were also committed to eliminate inoffensive dissidence.

The "Blessed" nations of today have been built through the blood of many non-Christians. Your self-satisfaction of your actual condition is built on a bloody history.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
With respect to the Library of Congress website, I don't think that is accurate. I think you certainly could make an argument with respect to Maryland as an explicitly Catholic state, and perhaps Quaker Pennsylvania.

I'm still not exactly sure what you're arguing about?

Go back and read my original statement:

When talking of people coming to the new world to escape the religious persecution of the old, we�re generally talking about people fleeing Christian tyrannies.

So when talking of people escaping religious persecution in the 'old world' vs. the new (THE ONLY THING I WAS TALKING ABOUT, not every other kind of immigration, nor reason any colony was founded) are we talking more often about Islamic tyrannies? Some other religion?

I think you completely misread my point, and reason for bringing it up. Nowhere did I imply that this was the only situation in which people came to the new world. (A ridiculous notion and nothing I came up with.) Nowhere did I imply that all of those who did flee for religious reasons didn't themselves become religious tyrants.

The onlypoint was that there have been Christian nations that have in fact been tyrannical and therefore in context to this thread �unblessed� enough that people have sought to flee them.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
I'm still not exactly sure what you're arguing about?

Go back and read my original statement:

So when talking of people escaping religious persecution in the 'old world' vs. the new (THE ONLY THING I WAS TALKING ABOUT, not every other kind of immigration, nor reason any colony was founded) are we talking more often about Islamic tyrannies? Some other religion?

I think you completely misread my point, and reason for bringing it up. Nowhere did I imply that this was the only situation in which people came to the new world. (A ridiculous notion and nothing I came up with.) Nowhere did I imply that all of those who did flee for religious reasons didn't themselves become religious tyrants.

The onlypoint was that there have been Christian nations that have in fact been tyrannical and therefore in context to this thread �unblessed� enough that people have sought to flee them.

Strange that you went to such lengths to defend an assertion that you now say wasn't what you meant to say in the first place. Your original post certainly seemed to imply that the phenomenon of people coming to the new world to flee religious persecution was a widespread phenomenon. In fact it wasn't. The dominant reasons people got onto ships wasn't to seek religious liberty, or political liberty. It was simply to make a better living (which, of course, is economic liberty). However, I do think it would be true to say that once here, they found the space to enjoy greater religious and political liberty. There just wasn't as strong a government here, which makes it pretty easy to go your own way in a small independent community.

But, OK. If all you are saying is that the few who did come to the new world to escape persecution were escaping Christian persecution, then OK, that's true. Obviously, Europe was Christian. So any persecution would be by Christians. That's not an especially startling observation. I'm sorry I read more into your post than was there.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
[B]Strange that you went to such lengths to defend an assertion that you now say wasn't what you meant to say in the first place. Your original post certainly seemed to imply that the phenomenon of people coming to the new world to flee religious persecution was a widespread phenomenon. In fact it wasn't.

Sorry, but I still don't see where what I wrote implied any such thing.

Obviously, Europe was Christian. So any persecution would be by Christians. That's not an especially startling observation. I'm sorry I read more into your post than was there.

I completely fail to see why it had to be any 'startling observation' it's only a point in context with the entire subject of this thread.

Anyway, no biggie.

[Hawkeye_a]

Hmmm where to begin....
Ive lived in both places, so ill just give you my honest opinion on your rather.... misinformed(imo) question.

Europe and Asia. Europeans (before the colonization of the new world), conquered Africa and Asia and South Ameria, with the pursuit of 'gold' and treasures on their minds. So you had ****ries like India, hong kong, the middle east, northern and southern africa, etc under european rule. The europeans didnt go to these places fr an exended vacation, the purpose was treasure...gold, diamonds, spices,etc. After the supply was exhausted and it wasnt economically feasable to maintain the empire's outpost, they left and gave the natives their 'freedom' (at quite a hefty price). When i say Europe, i mean.... England, france, Spain, Portugual and the Netherlands....cause thats all im aware of right now. Think of the european conquerors as the Norse vikings on a global scale. Thats just the way history played out... not questioning the morality,etc here, just trying to sum up some inalienable facts.
A lot of this treasures moved to the new reaches of the empire.... Europe, North America, Australia, etc.
Most Americans beleive, they are responsible for their current prosperity, but in my opinion, they and stnding on the shoulders of their european ancestory. (just like we all do).
That process of accumulating wealth helped fund the europeans on a global scale, and the fruits of it are apparent even today.

As far as the Middle east....... it too had it's empire in the past.... the few things that we still use today that oiginated in the middle east are..... numbers, the calendar, perfumes, soap, paper.

In the end, when you look at the world, throughout time, you'll noice that every region/culture had their empire at some point, they were strngely prosperous compared to the rest of the world.....
The Chineeses, Indian, Persian, Ottoman(spell?), Egyptian, the Europeans, Aztecs, Mongolian, etc... Right now, it's America's turn in history. At some other time, it would have been someplace else where people wanted to migrate to.

Right now, if your truely honest with yourself...you'll admit that europe and america are the places where anyone wants to migrate to and live. as opposed to asia and the mideast...thats not to say that people there arent happy. but...for example, give an asian person the opportunity to move to the west and they'll take it, do the same to an American, and chances are they will pass it up without a second thought.

Also worth mentioning in this discussion...would be the Library in Alexandria, which burne d down. That in my opinion, was a much larger tragedy in history than any war.... so much work./knowledge lost, and we as the human race to discover all that knowledge all over again... it set us back a lot more than anything.

So in the end... it's america's turn in history thats all. and it wasnt solely due to the choices that America has made...it's the way history played out thats made America what it is today, as can be said of any empire in history in any time.

Cheeers

[undotwa]

Originally posted by idjeff:
...and Muslim nations are not?

By that, I mean, why is it that traditionally Christian nations such as many of the countries in Europe and North America seem to have it so good, whereas nations which are more Muslim do not have it so good?

Discussion please...

It depends where. Central America, Christian Africa amongst other places are not the most blessed countries (especially Considering most christians live south of the equater in Africa which is much poorer than the moslem north).

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
If you're sitting in a country where you can just sit on the beach waiting for a coconut to drop, you're not going to be getting into inventive thinking much. Winter is good for inventiveness.

The nights and winters can actually be quite harsh in most of the Middle East. This is one of the reasons that Christ's traditional birthdate of December 25 is so debated: politically, it would have made little sense for Rome to force the people of that region to travel during such a harsh time of year, considering that they were already inclined to revolt against him.

You think in your native language. This creates a wide difference between peoples of different countries (I'm generalising but: i.e. Germans more precise, Italians more fiery, Spanish more lazy).

Um, dude; you are so opening yourself to flamewars with that statement.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Ask your First Nations for example. Then let us do a tour of all the Americas. Then let us have a look at Africa. These are some examples.

I didn't think you could make the connection. I was of course, correct.

Through oppression and genocide. In the end, religion may have been a strong tool to help people unite behind a belief, but that belief was accessory to murder.

And hospitals, freedom, missions work, scientific advancement, care for the poor and sick, long-term nursing care... I hope you recall the Christian travesties while you're staying in a hospital, or visiting one of your more recent relatives (you know, not ancestory from centuries past) in a long-term nursing care facility. I understand, you have a pretty good chip on your shoulder, but you should not allow that to paralyze you from intellectual pursuit. Christianity had a profoundly positive affect on the Greco-Roman society for example. An historically brutal society with children being left in waste dumps, the objectivity of women and unwanted children through prostitution and slavery and the culture of death further propogated by sporting events in which the anxious spectator awaits the unfortunate fate of another. Christian influence saw an end to these practices.

Einstein himself, frustrated with the lack of opposition to the Nazi movement indicted all of human nature with particular exception to the Church. Why? In his words; (1944) �Being a lover of freedom, when the Nazi revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, but the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of newspapers, but they, like the universities were silenced in a few short weeks. Then I looked to individual writers�they too were mute. Only the Church,� Einstein concluded, �stood squarely across the path of Hitler�s campaign for suppressing the truth�I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel great affection and admiration�and am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly.� Is Einstein a Christian? No, but he was undoubtedly one of the smartest men that ever lived. See, what you are indicting is religion when religion was simply a vehicle used to exact oppression and murder. This type of greed exists among humankind and is not the intention of religion, but is the result of human nature. If religion had not existed, another vehicle would've been used. It is simple-minded of you to indict religion when it is the evil nature of humankind that authored the violence you're talking about.

Your "psychosis, as I referred to it, is in direct relation to your own comment:

I read it and am still convinced the psychosis is yours my friend.

Do not make the mistake of taking the capacity to vote as the definite trend of "Blessed" Christian Democracies, because the very same Christian Democracies were also committed to eliminate inoffensive dissidence.

Huh?!? I never said this. I see the act of voting while facing the possibility of giving your life at the polls as proof that people generally want the ability to influence their own governments. They are embracing change and liberty with open arms. You, however, taking your freedoms for granted; cringe at such a concept. Interesting to me. While we're at it, don't assume a stance for me, then attack that assumed stance. It makes you look like an ass, but then I guess it was already too late for you to fix that.

The "Blessed" nations of today have been built through the blood of many non-Christians. Your self-satisfaction of your actual condition is built on a bloody history.

No sir, blood, murder, and imperialism are the result of the human condition as it relies on greed, ignorance and fear. This nation was successfully built in spite of these human conditions as they were outweighed by Christian influence and facilitated the birth of the most successful democracy in the World and it took less than 230 years. Greed, ignorance and fear are three traits that are not exclusive to religion. You are an excellent example of hatred based on ignorance and fear. In fact, echoed in your statements are those made by none other than Hitler himself. Religion was used by the ignorant, greedy, and fearful, not the strong practicing Christian following the tenets of the New Testament. This is human nature's fault, not religion's.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by undotwa:
It depends where. Central America, Christian Africa amongst other places are not the most blessed countries (especially Considering most christians live south of the equater in Africa which is much poorer than the moslem north).

I wonder why. Yes, evidenced by the mass killings of Christians in Sudan. This is perhaps the best possible example of the type of "freedom" those in the 'north' support.
Popular Defense Force (PDF) - This is a government-sponsored group that is larger and better equipped than the standing army. This group is known to have its ranks filled with the most fanatical Muslim fighters. They often engage in actions against the rebel forces in the South. Since these actions are done with government support or in coordination with government forces, their actions are listed with those of the government. It is reported that the government gives weapons to various Muslim tribes to increase their effectiveness in conducting slave and cattle raids against non-Muslim peoples in the South. These Arab militias, which often use the names Mujahadeen (holy warriors) or Murahaleen often fight alongside government forces. Their actions are also listed with those of the government.

Though it has been stated by the National Islamic Front (NIF), the current military regime, that religious freedom is respected, Islam is the de facto state religion. The acronym GoS (Government of Sudan) is often used to identify government forces.

Forced conversions to Islam is a part of government policy.

Churches are often closed, destroyed, or not allowed to be built.

Christian home groups are considered to be a public disturbance and Bible teachers are considered to be the leaders of these public disturbances and are arrested.

Open preaching is prohibited and punishable by beating or a jail sentence.

Many Islamic principles are accepted as customs, such as giving the testimony of a Christian man half the weight of that given to a Muslim man. Christians are under constant pressure to convert to Islam.

Christians are commonly discriminated against in the workplace and rarely receive promotions.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Splinter:
That dosnt make sense... the only non "3rd world country" in the middle east has practically no oil reserves to speak of and had one of the harshest lands to develop...

You mean Lebanon? Or Bahrain?

Tom Friedman would argue that it's precisely the presence of oil that has crippled many Mideast nations. Only if or when they get off the "easy fix" do they start looking for other ways to develop economically, like free flow of information and capital, industrialization, investing in education, etc.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
This is human nature's fault, not religion's.

So your conclusion is that the good comes from religion, the bad from human nature.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I didn't think you could make the connection. I was of course, correct.

And hospitals, freedom, missions work, scientific advancement, care for the poor and sick, long-term nursing care... I hope you recall the Christian travesties while you're staying in a hospital, or visiting one of your more recent relatives (you know, not ancestory from centuries past) in a long-term nursing care facility. I understand, you have a pretty good chip on your shoulder, but you should not allow that to paralyze you from intellectual pursuit. Christianity had a profoundly positive affect on the Greco-Roman society for example. An historically brutal society with children being left in waste dumps, the objectivity of women and unwanted children through prostitution and slavery and the culture of death further propogated by sporting events in which the anxious spectator awaits the unfortunate fate of another. Christian influence saw an end to these practices.

The very same Christians saw to also judge the so-called "possessed" for any type of reasons just to test their Faith.

ebuddy, you cannot take only the Good moves to generalize, and neither could I use only the bad. But it does show that the very notion of being blessed because we are part of a religion is a fallacy of the mind and is not coherent to reality.

Einstein himself, frustrated with the lack of opposition to the Nazi movement indicted all of human nature with particular exception to the Church. Why? In his words; (1944) �Being a lover of freedom, when the Nazi revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, but the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of newspapers, but they, like the universities were silenced in a few short weeks. Then I looked to individual writers�they too were mute. Only the Church,� Einstein concluded, �stood squarely across the path of Hitler�s campaign for suppressing the truth�I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel great affection and admiration�and am forced thus to confess that what I once despised, I now praise unreservedly.� Is Einstein a Christian? No, but he was undoubtedly one of the smartest men that ever lived. See, what you are indicting is religion when religion was simply a vehicle used to exact oppression and murder. This type of greed exists among humankind and is not the intention of religion, but is the result of human nature. If religion had not existed, another vehicle would've been used. It is simple-minded of you to indict religion when it is the evil nature of humankind that authored the violence you're talking about.

As you quoted: "Only the Church". Well, where were all those "blessed Christian nations" at the time? How come it took the Church, instead of the nations themselves to prevent that infamy? And that Church, can it do anything without the people promoting it?

I read it and am still convinced the psychosis is yours my friend.

Well I apologize for the harsh judgement.

Because they have not been capable of reaching the level of ingratitude you so eloquently displayed above.

There is what really made me angry. You don't like to be given attributions, yet do exzactly the same. That you attribute to me the incapacity of being grateful for what I have is one thing, but that you believe that our Christian world is a standard to be followed, well I redirect you to your own thoughts:

No sir, blood, murder, and imperialism are the result of the human condition as it relies on greed, ignorance and fear. This nation was successfully built in spite of these human conditions as they were outweighed by Christian influence and facilitated the birth of the most successful democracy in the World and it took less than 230 years. Greed, ignorance and fear are three traits that are not exclusive to religion. You are an excellent example of hatred based on ignorance and fear. In fact, echoed in your statements are those made by none other than Hitler himself. Religion was used by the ignorant, greedy, and fearful, not the strong practicing Christian following the tenets of the New Testament. This is human nature's fault, not religion's.

Not everyone is following a Christian philosophy, and many good people (i.e. Einstein for instance) are examples that you do not need to be Christian to be blessed with some Goodness.

This leads to the only conclusion: religiosity is a human quality used both for Good and Bad, and what makes the difference, is the real acts of Goodness. Religion is a factor, but not all of it.

[padishahemperor]

As a muslim I find this utterly offensive.

The initial question and the tone of it is pure bollocks and can only come from an ignorant american christian. Offended? Am I generalising enough? The very question is insulting. If being "blessed" means living off the fat of the worlds misery then may God help you.

The state of the world has nothing to do with who is blessed!?! what nonsense. I'm furious! It's everything to do with economics and the fact that the entire GDP of the "Islamic" world is less than Germany, it's to do with the fact that western powers have been meddling in affairs which are none of their business for over 200 years, cutting off the wealth, propping up puppet monarchies and corrupt dictators.

And every time countries like the US, export without consent their culture and beliefs in something any true monotheist would find laughable, if forces more and more into isolation, desparation and eventual violence as they see their very existence being slowly eroded by something alien and unpleasant. Of course, juvenile states aren't grown up enough to know this yet. Or maybe this is what they want.

This is all made worse by having a big immature bully running loose.

Why are Christian nations blessed? They are not, they just have more 'things'. None of it is worth anything, none of it matters when you draw your final breath, none of it matters when you stand before your maker. No religion teaches that materialism is good, it's greed and just greed. They have better living standards because they've raped the rest of the world, stripped it of it's pride, it's dignity and left it derelict and a vacuum for fundamentalists and puppet governments and dictators, usually put in power for western profits and agendas.

Bin Laden did not appear out of a vacuum.

Well great, now I know this kind of racist, ignorant crap and shite is on this forum, I'm off, I want nothing to do with a forum which engages in this offensive garbage.

[malvolio]

I find it interesting that those nations that are more "blessed" than the USA (having better standards of living, better health care, better educational systems, lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy) are precisely the nations in which Christianity has been "withering away": Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc.

[idjeff]

Originally posted by padishahemperor:
As a muslim I find this utterly offensive.

The initial question and the tone of it is pure bollocks and can only come from an ignorant american christian. Offended? Am I generalising enough? The very question is insulting. If being "blessed" means living off the fat of the worlds misery then may God help you.

The state of the world has nothing to do with who is blessed!?! what nonsense. I'm furious! It's everything to do with economics and the fact that the entire GDP of the "Islamic" world is less than Germany, it's to do with the fact that western powers have been meddling in affairs which are none of their business for over 200 years, cutting off the wealth, propping up puppet monarchies and corrupt dictators.

And every time countries like the US, export without consent their culture and beliefs in something any true monotheist would find laughable, if forces more and more into isolation, desparation and eventual violence as they see their very existence being slowly eroded by something alien and unpleasant. Of course, juvenile states aren't grown up enough to know this yet. Or maybe this is what they want.

This is all made worse by having a big immature bully running loose.

Why are Christian nations blessed? They are not, they just have more 'things'. None of it is worth anything, none of it matters when you draw your final breath, none of it matters when you stand before your maker. No religion teaches that materialism is good, it's greed and just greed. They have better living standards because they've raped the rest of the world, stripped it of it's pride, it's dignity and left it derelict and a vacuum for fundamentalists and puppet governments and dictators, usually put in power for western profits and agendas.

Bin Laden did not appear out of a vacuum.

Well great, now I know this kind of racist, ignorant crap and shite is on this forum, I'm off, I want nothing to do with a forum which engages in this offensive garbage.

Ummm...ok then. This thread was in no sense intended to be a racist thread...It was only meant to be a discussion.

Since religion is not based on race, but on faith, I must insist on saying that this is not a racist thread. The observation is that MOST western nations are Christian...that is all. You mention economics...ok...why was wealth allowed to be "achieved" by the western "christian" nations? Does God allow his people to be "raped"? Where is your God? Why all the suffering?

I agree that greed is evil. I agree that none of it matters when you draw your final breath. Just because someone is "well off" doesn't mean that they are greedy. There are many Muslim people that are well off...Bin Laden for example. Is he materialistic? No. Greedy? Yes! His greed is apparent. Apparent in his fanatacism to kill the "infidel". Is he wrong? Yes!

Of course, juvenile states aren't grown up enough to know this yet.

Well, aren't you being a bit condescending?


Wealth and POWER might be something that could be considered a blessing. The opposite being poverty and weakness (ie. no power). But the question is, was this in all actuality given by God?

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by idjeff:
Wealth and POWER might be something that could be considered a blessing. The opposite being poverty and weakness (ie. no power). But the question is, was this in all actuality given by God?

Do you really think that Jesus(pbuh) would have agreed?

Matthew 19:24

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by idjeff:
why was wealth allowed to be "achieved" by the western "christian" nations? Does God allow his people to be "raped"? Where is your God? Why all the suffering?
(...)
Wealth and POWER might be something that could be considered a blessing. The opposite being poverty and weakness (ie. no power). But the question is, was this in all actuality given by God?

A blessing?

And how did you get that power? Sitting on your bum? You waited and it fell on you like rain because you "believed"?

Time to read your History books. If you live in a world of magic thinking, well I am sorry for you.

The simple conception of "blessing" is based on something akin to providence, denying human beings any responsability in the act. If you have no responsibility in the act, it means that you are... powerless!

How can you sustain such a contradictory position?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The nights and winters can actually be quite harsh in most of the Middle East. This is one of the reasons that Christ's traditional birthdate of December 25 is so debated: politically, it would have made little sense for Rome to force the people of that region to travel during such a harsh time of year, considering that they were already inclined to revolt against him.

Yeah, I wasn't heading down a historical Christians vs everyone else route. I was simply observing the historical facts over the last 1,000 years or so. I can't recall any solid material progress over the last 1,000 years that wasn't caused by something invented in a temperate clime.

To simplify: We've all seen the effects of sunny weather on the pineal(?) gland. It gets sunny, you want to sit about on the beach doing nothing, you feel contented, happy. It gets less sunny, you feel less contented and start to seek ways of escaping and jetting off to the sun. Imagine this effect on a huge scale.

See, up there they're all arguing a religious aspect, like this:

It depends where. Central America, Christian Africa amongst other places are not the most blessed countries

I find it interesting that those nations that are more "blessed" than the USA (having better standards of living, better health care, better educational systems, lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy) are precisely the nations in which Christianity has been "withering away": Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc.

...yet if you simply take my theories into account the answer presents itself.

Originally posted by Millennium:
Um, dude; you are so opening yourself to flamewars with that statement.

I know. The truth always hurts.

BTW, I wasn't using those generalisations in a negative way. I like German precision, Italian fire and Spanish laziness. OK, so the Spanish laziness could be seen as negative but who hasn't heard of the "ma�ana" philosophy?

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Simple Life; ebuddy, you cannot take only the Good moves to generalize, and neither could I use only the bad.

Yet, ironically that's exactly what you did.

But it does show that the very notion of being blessed because we are part of a religion is a fallacy of the mind and is not coherent to reality.

Not necessarily. I suppsed that the question of whether or not the success of the West is attributable strictly to it's religion and/or it's ideals of governing to be debateable. I didn't give you the notion mentioned above. Me thinks I've been wrongly accused of something yet again.

There is what really made me angry. You don't like to be given attributions, yet do exzactly the same. That you attribute to me the incapacity of being grateful for what I have is one thing, but that you believe that our Christian world is a standard to be followed, well I redirect you to your own thoughts

First of all; when did I say that our Christian standard is to be followed??? Why do you insist on assuming a stance for me, then debating that stance. This is called a strawman. Please stop with the misrepresenations as it only establishes your lack of a substantive point. Secondly, you said "Yah?! But we're Free!?" then you concluded with; "Yeah right."
So, in this you are implying that we are not free. If you weren't implying this, then you really did your point (whatever that may be) a great injustice. This tells me you take for granted the freedoms you clearly do have. Don't insight flames by statements like the above, then put on some stilted display of offendedness. Don't apologize for you harshness, try to avoid it when it's not necessary. This will not only clarify your conscience, but your point.

[idjeff]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Do you really think that Jesus(pbuh) would have agreed?

Matthew 19:24

"Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Would have agreed with what? If you have wealth and power, are you destined for eternal damnation? Were King Solomon and King David blessed with wealth and power? Yes, they were. Were they damned by God? No. Perhaps you took that verse out of context Salah.

Besides, blessed can be more than having material goods. Wouldn't you agree?

[MrSundberg]

@Sherwin:

Let me share e quote from a book of mine that I bougth while studying geography 101 at Stockholm universety (Human Geography, by Fellman, Getis & Getis):

Geographers have long dissmissed as intellectually limiting and demonstrably invalid[emphasis mine] the ideas of enviromental determenism, the belief that the physical enviroment exlusively shapes humans, their actions, and their thoughts. Enviromental factors alone cannot account for the cultural variations that occur around the wourld. Levels of technology, systems of organisation, and ideas about what is true and right have no obvious reationship to enviromental circumstances.

If you think that you can challange the current theory in the matter (ie enviromental possiblism), or bring forward conclusive proof that the (massive) critique of enviromental determinism is wrong, then please do so. After all that do is one the fundaments of science.

[Daemon2]

Didn't they dismiss this whole "Mandate of Heaven" thing during the 18th century as a load of crap? Welcome to the Dark Ages.

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by MrSundberg:
Geographers have long dissmissed as intellectually limiting and demonstrably invalid[emphasis mine] the ideas of enviromental determenism, the belief that the physical enviroment exlusively shapes humans, their actions, and their thoughts. Enviromental factors alone cannot account for the cultural variations that occur around the wourld. Levels of technology, systems of organisation, and ideas about what is true and right have no obvious reationship to enviromental circumstances.

We weren't talking culture as such - we were talking "blessed' (or, in other words, technological advancement). Anyone may observe that while Europe and Japan have very different cultures, they're essentially identical in terms of technological advancement.

If my theory isn't correct, why has there been no technological advancement (and we're talking advancement, not usage) in anything other than temperate zones for a substantial amount of time?

Note that it's also not a standalone theory - language also has a lot to do with it IMHO.

[MrSundberg]

Originally posted by Sherwin:
We weren't talking culture as such - we were talking "blessed' (or, in other words, technological advancement). Anyone may observe that while Europe and Japan have very different cultures, they're essentially identical in terms of technological advancement.

If my theory isn't correct, why has there been no technological advancement (and we're talking advancement, not usage) in anything other than temperate zones for a substantial amount of time?

Note that it's also not a standalone theory - language also has a lot to do with it IMHO.

How is it a theory? A theory means (in a strict scientific meaning) that it's an explenation of reality that has been subjected to tests which have failed at falsifying it. Is that what you mean when you state that it's a theory? Allso I'm wondering what you mean with "technological advancement", what sort of values do you put in that statement? Furthermore, what defention of "temperate" are you using, because it's none that I remember reading about. It's been a while though, so pointers are apreciated.

Now onto a couple of observations:

The climes in (for example) california isn't temperate, it's mediterrainian. And they seem to be doing just fine, as is the people in Texas (wich, largely, allso isn't temperate). Bio engineering is big in places like Brazil for example. Israel, wich isn't temperate by any means of the word, has got CPU research facilleties which are doing just fine. And the list goes on...

As for language, the Swedish people are (grossly generalised) very good at taking old inventions and refining them, as are the Japanese. What similareties in language does the two show? As a person that has had contact with both I think I can clearly say, none. Now how do you propose to handle this counter example to your hypothesis?

[MrSundberg]

@Sherwin

I should allso note that what you are talking about is enviromental determenism.

Even if you try to wiggle your way out of it by semantics, your basic idea is still the one that the enviroment shapes people and that the people are slaves to this. Then why you insist on bringing up the criteria of "technological advancement", in this "substatial amount of time" wich very conveniently remains undefined, remains a mystery. What is your basis of this defentition, why is it important?

[Athens]

Originally posted by idjeff:
Ummm...ok then. This thread was in no sense intended to be a racist thread...It was only meant to be a discussion.

Since religion is not based on race, but on faith, I must insist on saying that this is not a racist thread. The observation is that MOST western nations are Christian...that is all. You mention economics...ok...why was wealth allowed to be "achieved" by the western "christian" nations? Does God allow his people to be "raped"? Where is your God? Why all the suffering?

I agree that greed is evil. I agree that none of it matters when you draw your final breath. Just because someone is "well off" doesn't mean that they are greedy. There are many Muslim people that are well off...Bin Laden for example. Is he materialistic? No. Greedy? Yes! His greed is apparent. Apparent in his fanatacism to kill the "infidel". Is he wrong? Yes!



Well, aren't you being a bit condescending?


Wealth and POWER might be something that could be considered a blessing. The opposite being poverty and weakness (ie. no power). But the question is, was this in all actuality given by God?

I disagree about the part it dosent matter when you take your last breath. Your personal wealth matters on death if you have a family, it allows the family to be well off.

[Millennium]

How exactly does a nation export its culture "without consent"? Clearly you have not consented to partake of American culture, but I do not see you being forced to do so against your will either. Are you saying that others should not be allowed to make that decision for themselves?

[Sherwin]

Originally posted by MrSundberg:
How is it a theory? A theory means (in a strict scientific meaning) that it's an explenation of reality that has been subjected to tests which have failed at falsifying it. Is that what you mean when you state that it's a theory?

Yep. I've thrown a lot of logic at it and it's come out intact every time.

Originally posted by MrSundberg:
Allso I'm wondering what you mean with "technological advancement", what sort of values do you put in that statement?

As opposed to cultural advancement.

Technological advancement = stuff which makes life easier. Your computer. Your washing machine. Your microwave. The farmer's tractor which helped bring your food to the table.

Cultural advancement = non-essentials such as advancement in theology or art.

Originally posted by MrSundberg:
Furthermore, what defention of "temperate" are you using, because it's none that I remember reading about. It's been a while though, so pointers are apreciated.

I don't need to answer that unless you really are trolling.

Originally posted by MrSundberg:
Now onto a couple of observations:

The climes in (for example) california isn't temperate, it's mediterrainian.

No, it's mostly oceanic and sub-tropical. The culture prevalent in the US is one which is derived from a linguistic seed based in temperate climes. Likewise with Texas. Also, if air-con hadn't have been invented, these places would be far less productive.

Originally posted by MrSundberg:
Bio engineering is big in places like Brazil for example.

Southern Brazil ain't that hot you know. There again, combine with the European linguistic seed and you have your answer.

Originally posted by MrSundberg:
Israel, wich isn't temperate by any means of the word, has got CPU research facilleties which are doing just fine.

The productive parts of Israel have a maritime climate, which to all intents and purposes is temperate.

Originally posted by MrSundberg:
And the list goes on...

As for language, the Swedish people are (grossly generalised) very good at taking old inventions and refining them, as are the Japanese. What similareties in language does the two show? As a person that has had contact with both I think I can clearly say, none. Now how do you propose to handle this counter example to your hypothesis?

Observation. I'll let you know when I see the new miniaturised Volvo.

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Not necessarily. I suppsed that the question of whether or not the success of the West is attributable strictly to it's religion and/or it's ideals of governing to be debateable. I didn't give you the notion mentioned above. Me thinks I've been wrongly accused of something yet again.

Be specific: what did I accuse you of?

First of all; when did I say that our Christian standard is to be followed???

Read your own posts:

An historically brutal society with children being left in waste dumps, the objectivity of women and unwanted children through prostitution and slavery and the culture of death further propogated by sporting events in which the anxious spectator awaits the unfortunate fate of another. Christian influence saw an end to these practices.

So it has stopped? Have you given a closer look to our Western society? From South America up to the Northen parts of Canada through the U.S. we have children underfed, from families living on Welfare. Quite an accomplishment for the blessed Christian.

Me thinks that the only good thing for the poor ist that they are Christians.

And you make me laugh when you criticize me fro bringing the past, yet you go at lenghts to go even further in the Past. Sheesh...

Why do you insist on assuming a stance for me, then debating that stance. This is called a strawman. Please stop with the misrepresenations as it only establishes your lack of a substantive point. Secondly, you said "Yah?! But we're Free!?" then you concluded with; "Yeah right."
So, in this you are implying that we are not free. If you weren't implying this, then you really did your point (whatever that may be) a great injustice. This tells me you take for granted the freedoms you clearly do have. Don't insight flames by statements like the above, then put on some stilted display of offendedness. Don't apologize for you harshness, try to avoid it when it's not necessary. This will not only clarify your conscience, but your point.

I think you should re-read your own posts, and see through their logic; you are mixing evil with human nature but all successes to Christian philosophy. But you cannot even live with your own contradictions when using Einstein's relationship with the Church. while denying the topic at hand, which regards nations, all of which, the most Western ones, were kinda a late to get involved in the War.

And you still have not responded to the idea that all those blessing came through a bloody festival of overpowering freedom to the detriment of First Nations.

As to my ingratitude, I have been working with doctors for 15 years, and I have a different point of view regarding the Good and the Evil, and it has nothing to do with religion.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by idjeff:
Would have agreed with what? If you have wealth and power, are you destined for eternal damnation? Were King Solomon and King David blessed with wealth and power? Yes, they were. Were they damned by God? No. Perhaps you took that verse out of context Salah.

Besides, blessed can be more than having material goods. Wouldn't you agree?

Actually if I would have quoted the whole relevant passage it would have been more damning.

And tell me. King Solomon and King David, are they a part of the Old or the New testament?

And in what way would you say that the West is blessed in other ways than material wealth?

And just to remember our "Christian" friend what the passage say:

Matthew 19:16-28
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, �Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?�

17�Why do you ask me about what is good?� Jesus replied. �There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.�

18�Which ones?� the man inquired.

Jesus replied, � �Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,�[d] and �love your neighbor as yourself.�[e]�

20�All these I have kept,� the young man said. �What do I still lack?�

21Jesus answered, �If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.�

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, �I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.�

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, �Who then can be saved?�

26Jesus looked at them and said, �With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.�

27Peter answered him, �We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?�

28Jesus said to them, �I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

[MrSundberg]

Yep. I've thrown a lot of logic at it and it's come out intact every time.

Still not good enough for a theory, it needs to be peer reviewed and accepted by a majorety of the scientific community. In what scientific publication has it gone through that? Or is it meerly a Hypotesis, and an untested one at that (ie, no, peer review)?

Originally posted by Sherwin:
I don't need to answer that unless you really are trolling.

Yes, yes you do. If this is going to be even a remotely stringent discussion you have to. The burden of proof is infact upon your sholders not mine since you are the one challanging the standing theory.

Do you for example mean the zone that stretches from the tropics (tropic of cancer fro example) to the polar circles. Or dou you mean it in a more micro climatological meaning? Or do you mean regions with a climate characterized by having roughly equally long winters and summers?

Remember, "A dim and vauge sentence is usually constructed by a dim ang vauge mind". This is not the impression you wish to leave, no?

And do remember that trolling!=dissagreeing

No, it's mostly oceanic and sub-tropical. The culture prevalent in the US is one which is derived from a linguistic seed based in temperate climes. Likewise with Texas. Also, if air-con hadn't have been invented, these places would be far less productive.

The populatred areas are mainly in the mediterrian zone. Go take a look in Christophersons "Geosystems" if you don't belive me. Large sections of Texas isn't what you'd consider a temperate clime either.

And as for the development of the so called "sunbelt" I refer you to the book "searching for the sunbelt" (unfortunately I've forgot the name of the authors ), the reason for the expansion of what was once known as the "sunbelt states" has everything to do about military/state money beeing poored into the "region" and shrewd local poleticians and nothing to do about clime. When it comes to California and the seaside citiesm which reside in a mediterranian clime. You do know that a medditeranian climate is considered ideal for humans? Infact it is so ideal that practically all of the natural mediterranian type of vegetation has been extinct. And now if (and it is, trust me) a mediterranian clime is the most suitable for humans. How can places like Silicon Valley exist?

Southern Brazil ain't that hot you know. There again, combine with the European linguistic seed and you have your answer.

So you are saying that there is no innovation at all in the more central parts of Brazil, in say Brasilia and the university of Brasilia? That's interesting... And would you really say that the clime in the S�u Paulo State is teperate? They grow coffe there you know...

And to bring this further, is there some sort of statistical curve wich you think exists that corelates to heat vs innovation and "difficulty of life"? How do you weigh this with increasing exposiure to disese/bugs/parasites when traveling south? How do you connect this to Maslovs theories, ie Maslov states that in a 5 scale hierarcy that the first thing man seeks to secure is food for the day and then at the top you find personal "self realisation" ie the urge to go and invent/explore etc. Wouldn't it be natural for those in the south to be MORE inclined to reach the top stage of Maslovs hierachy? If what you say is true that "Necessity is the mother of invention. If you're sitting in a country where you need to think about how to get your food or keep warm, you're gonna be more inventive. If you're sitting in a country where you can just sit on the beach waiting for a coconut to drop, you're not going to be getting into inventive thinking much."?

The productive parts of Israel have a maritime climate, which to all intents and purposes is temperate.

Again I refer you to Christophersons Geosystems. Israles clime is arid, and iirc mediterranian at the coast.

Observation. I'll let you know when I see the new miniaturised Volvo.

Your theory is seriously crumbeling if that is you rebuttal. The method of science is the try and explain why the asked question is non relevant or faulty, alternatively try and alter the hypothesis so that it fits the new counter hypothesises that attack it. And of course if all else fails, discard it completey...

[idjeff]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Actually if I would have quoted the whole relevant passage it would have been more damning.

And tell me. King Solomon and King David, are they a part of the Old or the New testament?

And in what way would you say that the West is blessed in other ways than material wealth?

And just to remember our "Christian" friend what the passage say:

Matthew 19:16-28
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, �Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?�

17�Why do you ask me about what is good?� Jesus replied. �There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.�

18�Which ones?� the man inquired.

Jesus replied, � �Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,�[d] and �love your neighbor as yourself.�[e]�

20�All these I have kept,� the young man said. �What do I still lack?�

21Jesus answered, �If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.�

22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Then Jesus said to his disciples, �I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.�

25When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, �Who then can be saved?�

26Jesus looked at them and said, �With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.�

27Peter answered him, �We have left everything to follow you! What then will there be for us?�

28Jesus said to them, �I tell you the truth, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother[f] or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much and will inherit eternal life. 30But many who are first will be last, and many who are last will be first.

No, it's not more damning...

The basis for Jesus' words here are stating that it is good to give to the needy and poor, and that the rich should not focus their riches, but should focus on their faith. (The idea being that you can't focus on your faith if you're focus is to always gain monetary/material wealth.)

So, does the west give more? Yes. Does the west have more to give? Yes. Is this because the west is more blessed?

David and Solomon were from the Old Testament...and hey...they were rich AND were blessed by God. What's your point? Is the Old Testament a moot part of the Bible? Are the Ten Commandmants to be ignored after the New Testament was written? No.

How is the west blessed in other ways? Science, technology, medicine, farming....etc., etc.

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by idjeff:
No, it's not more damning...

The basis for Jesus' words here are stating that it is good to give to the needy and poor, and that the rich should not focus their riches, but should focus on their faith. (The idea being that you can't focus on your faith if you're focus is to always gain monetary/material wealth.)

So, does the west give more? Yes. Does the west have more to give? Yes. Is this because the west is more blessed?

Unimportant questions. The one and only important question is "Does the West give as much as they can?"

That is what Jesus(pbuh) was referring to above.

David and Solomon were from the Old Testament...and hey...they were rich AND were blessed by God. What's your point? Is the Old Testament a moot part of the Bible? Are the Ten Commandmants to be ignored after the New Testament was written? No.

You really need to read up on your Bible.

David started as a shepherd. Later he became king. And what caused the Kingdom of Israel to become split into two(Judea and Israel)? Suleyman's wealth. What does that tell you?

And my point is that you are the perfect example of American "Christianity". You have in this discussion of ours showed that you think the Old Testament is more important than the word of Jesus(pbuh). If you were a true Christian Jesus'(pbuh) word would be the most important message according to you.

And for the Ten Commandments. Do you remember the first?

How is the west blessed in other ways? Science, technology, medicine, farming....etc., etc.

Science: That is recent(at most a couple of hundred years). And most of it is based on the science of Muslim scholars. Does that mean Muslims were once more blessed than Christians?

Technology: A direct result of science. But that wasn't always so. Does that mean that Christians weren't blessed once?

Medicine: Again, wasn't always so.

Farming: ( ) Take a look at the geography of the West and the M-E(because you are ignoring most other Muslim nations that are doing just fine). Why do you think that the West is more "blessed" in farming than the M-E?

Either God can't make up his mind(highly unlikely for any true believer) or your hypothesis is just wrong.

Which is it?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Science: That is recent(at most a couple of hundred years). And most of it is based on the science of Muslim scholars. Does that mean Muslims were once more blessed than Christians?

If we are defining blessing as advancement, then yes, at one point Muslims were more blesses than Christians. As I already pointed out, during Christianity's Dark Ages the Islamic nations of the Middle East flourished as a center of civilization and advancement. The tables have turned, and why that happened is the subject of this thread's debate.

The real question is, whence does this "blessing" come? Does it come from a god, or something else?

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Millennium:
If we are defining blessing as advancement, then yes, at one point Muslims were more blesses than Christians. As I already pointed out, during Christianity's Dark Ages the Islamic nations of the Middle East flourished as a center of civilization and advancement. The tables have turned, and why that happened is the subject of this thread's debate.

The real question is, whence does this "blessing" come? Does it come from a god, or something else?

You and I probably agree(I hope) that this "blessing" just comes from human beings and their deeds.

IMO God doesn't change his opinion every now and then for whom he should bless.

[John Q. Smith]

We would be fooling ourselves if we said that the middle east is anywhere near as sophisticated or stable as the west. But islamic nations aren't inherently inferior to christian nations. Before the revolution, Iran was more modern than most european countries. Going back a little further, the islamic world as a whole was renowned for its tolerance and even liberalism. But it's understandable why the culture in the middle east has gone so far backwards in the last century. The collapse of europe as a major power and the resulting decolonisation of places like Iraq or Syria left a power vacuum that could only be filled by dictators and tyrants. The encroachment of Russian totalitarianism from the north also stymied the development of a liberal political culture. How are middle eastern countries supposed to grow and thrive when they are surrounded by such bad neighbours? Furthermore, oil really taints the political environment.

I don't think there's anything really wrong with Islam as such, but the rough economic and political circumstances have really encouraged religious leaders to take islam backwards, perhaps to distract people from the hardships of everyday life. It won't always be like this, though. The US is restructuring iraq into a liberal nation, Turkey is on the path to EU membership, the religious BS in Iran is slowly going away, and with Arafat dead, Palestine may finally have a chance at statehood. things are slowly turning around in the islamic world.

[idjeff]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Unimportant questions. The one and only important question is "Does the West give as much as they can?"

That is what Jesus(pbuh) was referring to above.

You really need to read up on your Bible.

David started as a shepherd. Later he became king. And what caused the Kingdom of Israel to become split into two(Judea and Israel)? Suleyman's wealth. What does that tell you?

And my point is that you are the perfect example of American "Christianity". You have in this discussion of ours showed that you think the Old Testament is more important than the word of Jesus(pbuh). If you were a true Christian Jesus'(pbuh) word would be the most important message according to you.

And for the Ten Commandments. Do you remember the first?


Science: That is recent(at most a couple of hundred years). And most of it is based on the science of Muslim scholars. Does that mean Muslims were once more blessed than Christians?

Technology: A direct result of science. But that wasn't always so. Does that mean that Christians weren't blessed once?

Medicine: Again, wasn't always so.

Farming: ( ) Take a look at the geography of the West and the M-E(because you are ignoring most other Muslim nations that are doing just fine). Why do you think that the West is more "blessed" in farming than the M-E?

Either God can't make up his mind(highly unlikely for any true believer) or your hypothesis is just wrong.

Which is it?

Unimportant questions. The one and only important question is "Does the West give as much as they can?"

By that standard, are you saying that Muslim nations give as much as they can? Didn't think so.

And my point is that you are the perfect example of American "Christianity". You have in this discussion of ours showed that you think the Old Testament is more important than the word of Jesus(pbuh). If you were a true Christian Jesus'(pbuh) word would be the most important message according to you.

Oh my, someone is judging me... Salah, you haven't a clue as to my standing in God's eyes.

Salah, you are an intelligent person as far as I can tell. You don't need to spin my points to make yourself look like an intelligent person, because I already feel that you are.

Never once did I say that the Old Testament is more important than the New Testament, nor can I understand where that notion came from. Jesus' Word and God's Word are one in the same. I believe that what Jesus spoke in the Scripture that you quoted was taken out of context by you as I said before.

Science: That is recent(at most a couple of hundred years). And most of it is based on the science of Muslim scholars. Does that mean Muslims were once more blessed than Christians?

Great! So most science is based of science of Muslim scholars. Who's contending that it isn't. It might be that Muslims were once more blessed than Christians...However, this thread is aimed at the present day and currently I would say that they aren't as blessed as western nations. But if the west turns its back on God, then I don't feel that the west will continue to be blessed.

Medicine: Again, wasn't always so.

But it is now....and if the west turns its back on God, then I don't feel that the west will continue to be blessed.

Farming: ( ) Take a look at the geography of the West and the M-E(because you are ignoring most other Muslim nations that are doing just fine). Why do you think that the West is more "blessed" in farming than the M-E?

Because of the amount that we are able to export while still being able to feed ourselves. But if the west turns its back on God, then I don't feel that the west will continue to be blessed.

I don't feel that my hypothesis in incorrect, however, it is just a hypothesis. There is no way for me to know what God is doing in the background. I am only making a guess based on my observation of world as I see it. You, I'm sure observe the world in a different light.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by idjeff:

So, does the west give more? Yes. Does the west have more to give? Yes.

Hmm, the world currently is split up between first- and thirdworld, while the first-world is mostly of christian nations, let's just forget the disturbance through Japan, and the thirdworld is mostly of pagan or islamic nations, let's just ignore the disturbing christian thirdworld-countries.

So, your idea is then that the first-world is helping the thirdworld, which is a pretty rediculous even bizzare idea and totally out of touch:
The first-world exploits the thirdworld for its ressources and workforce on so many levels, so much, that it is more correct to say that the thirdworld is helping the firstworld though not often voluntarily.

Just to remember, most of the thridworld-countries are helplessly in debt towards the first-world, and are therefore absolutely dependent on decisions made in the firstworld, like opening up markets to first-world-products, while at the same time the first-world keeps its own markets closed to thirdworld-products, what a joke!

If the firstworld would really have an interest in helping the thirdworld, it would open its markets to thirdworld-products and abolish its subventions towards its own industries and farmers, and allow the thirdworld to close its own markets until their industry is able to compete internationally and until a local market is established... If the west would really want to help it would forgive the debts and offer interest-less loans...

Taliesin

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
You and I probably agree(I hope) that this "blessing" just comes from human beings and their deeds.

IMO God doesn't change his opinion every now and then for whom he should bless.

Exactly. We have different religions, you and I, but neither of our God-concepts would simply switch his blessings around like this.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Hmm, the world currently is split up between first- and thirdworld, while the first-world is mostly of christian nations, let's just forget the disturbance through Japan, and the thirdworld is mostly of pagan or islamic nations, let's just ignore the disturbing christian thirdworld-countries.

You forgot to mention the second-world nations, though that term isn't used much anymore. I've heard two descriptions of where these terms came about, though the differences center mainly on where the first and second worlds are (they agree on the third world, which has some interesting implications).

According to one theory, it has to do with economics. First-world nations, by this definition, are developed capitalist nations. Second-world nations are also developed, but they practice communism (the USSR being the prime example, but they're gone now). Third-world nations encompassed everything else.

The other theory centers more along exploratory lines, and is even more Eurocentric. According to this, the first world consisted of Europe and Russia. The second world (or, more commonly, "New World") consisted of the Americas, including the US, and other regions explored during the first European age of exploration. The Third World consisted of everything else, particularly Africa and southeast Asia.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Exactly. We have different religions, you and I, but neither of our God-concepts would simply switch his blessings around like this.

Actually it is laid-down in the Quran, that indeed God changes his blessing to peoples depending on numerous criterias, for example:
- He could change his blessing to certain people because of the change of the people's faith and behaviour.
- He could change his blessing in order to test the faith of certain people.
...

For example the jews in Israel in ancient times had the blessing of God and then they lost it and they were scattered into all winds. I don't know though if it was a punishment for bad behaviour and faith of the jews there or if it was a test for their faith in God, or some other reason, only God knows.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Millennium:
You forgot to mention the second-world nations, though that term isn't used much anymore. I've heard two descriptions of where these terms came about, though the differences center mainly on where the first and second worlds are (they agree on the third world, which has some interesting implications).

According to one theory, it has to do with economics. First-world nations, by this definition, are developed capitalist nations. Second-world nations are also developed, but they practice communism (the USSR being the prime example, but they're gone now). Third-world nations encompassed everything else.

The other theory centers more along exploratory lines, and is even more Eurocentric. According to this, the first world consisted of Europe and Russia. The second world (or, more commonly, "New World") consisted of the Americas, including the US, and other regions explored during the first European age of exploration. The Third World consisted of everything else, particularly Africa and southeast Asia.

I didn't forget the secondworld, it was just more easy to make an argument on a binary world-concept.

Imho, today the second-world-countries are those islamic countries in North-Africa, from Morocco to Lybia, over to asian islamic countries like all the oil-states and Syria, Lebanon, Turkey and even Palestine... but also the southamerican countries like Brasilia, Argentina... or countries like China and India.

The thirdworld-countries would then be the mostly pagan or christian african countries or those civil-war-ridden countries in south- and centralamerica ...

But I can see that a definition depends on what criteria one uses.

Taliesin

[Salah al-Din]

Originally posted by Taliesin:
Actually it is laid-down in the Quran, that indeed God changes his blessing to peoples depending on numerous criterias, for example:
- He could change his blessing to certain people because of the change of the people's faith and behaviour.
- He could change his blessing in order to test the faith of certain people.
...

For example the jews in Israel in ancient times had the blessing of God and then they lost it and they were scattered into all winds. I don't know though if it was a punishment for bad behaviour and faith of the jews there or if it was a test for their faith in God, or some other reason, only God knows.

Taliesin

Just to remind me, could you point me to the relevant Surahs?

Thanks

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
Be specific: what did I accuse you of? Read your own posts:
So it has stopped? Have you given a closer look to our Western society? From South America up to the Northen parts of Canada through the U.S. we have children underfed, from families living on Welfare. Quite an accomplishment for the blessed Christian.
Me thinks that the only good thing for the poor ist that they are Christians.
And you make me laugh when you criticize me fro bringing the past, yet you go at lenghts to go even further in the Past. Sheesh...
I think you should re-read your own posts, and see through their logic; you are mixing evil with human nature but all successes to Christian philosophy. But you cannot even live with your own contradictions when using Einstein's relationship with the Church. while denying the topic at hand, which regards nations, all of which, the most Western ones, were kinda a late to get involved in the War.
And you still have not responded to the idea that all those blessing came through a bloody festival of overpowering freedom to the detriment of First Nations.
As to my ingratitude, I have been working with doctors for 15 years, and I have a different point of view regarding the Good and the Evil, and it has nothing to do with religion.

I don't need to read my posts, I wrote them. I merely said that Christian influence has also influenced a great many things for which you originally failed to acknowledge. I pointed out that your indictments are misplaced, that travesties are not the result of religion, but the manipulation of it. Your indictments should be made against human nature, not religion. I mentioned that it is debateable whether or not our nation is blessed because of it's Christian leaning. What part of this was debateable to you? Your points, obviously none. Show me a civilization that was not imperialistic. Show me a nation that didn't incite violence or use whatever philosophy it felt would best manipulate the masses. All you've shown me as that you have a really big chip on your shoulder and that your reading intake is first filtered through that chip. It's painfully obvious to me. In short, just as I thought; you have no point, only anger.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Show me a civilization that was not imperialistic.

Buddhist India, during the reign of Ashoka.
Next question?

[SimpleLife]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I don't need to read my posts, I wrote them. I merely said that Christian influence has also influenced a great many things for which you originally failed to acknowledge. I pointed out that your indictments are misplaced, that travesties are not the result of religion, but the manipulation of it. Your indictments should be made against human nature, not religion. I mentioned that it is debateable whether or not our nation is blessed because of it's Christian leaning. What part of this was debateable to you? Your points, obviously none. Show me a civilization that was not imperialistic. Show me a nation that didn't incite violence or use whatever philosophy it felt would best manipulate the masses. All you've shown me as that you have a really big chip on your shoulder and that your reading intake is first filtered through that chip. It's painfully obvious to me. In short, just as I thought; you have no point, only anger.

There was my point.

1) you accused me of being ungrateful (therefore you reacted to my point, which you did not agree with)
2) not agreeing with other people does not mean you are right.

You made your point, and so did I. Period.

[Taliesin]

Originally posted by Salah al-Din:
Just to remind me, could you point me to the relevant Surahs?

Thanks

Ok, no problem:

Surah 3:137-142.

I have read more verses about that topic before, but I can't remember in which suras they were anymore. Regardless that verses should suffice for now.

Taliesin