Student Pilot

Riffleman, did you read the article, or even the little quote Baff1 posted? It essentially said that the Himalayan glaciers are NOT melting. Nature's not cruel, may people will still have their life in the Himalayans, and Mumbai Chennai and Bangladesh will still exist. -Student Pilot

@oxmox This thread is not concerned about problems other than global warming/global cooling/climate change. @riffleman Nice try with your ad hominem argument. What does my opinion of nature have to do with the debate on the validity of man-made climate change? I find it interesting that you did not answer my question, but rather went straight to arguing against me. When you answer my question I will answer yours. -Student Pilot

@oxmox The climate has changed, yes. I don't think anyone is debating that point. The real debate is whether man has been a major contributer to the change. @riffleman I don't think I've got your point. First it is global warming, now it is global cooling? Or are you just going to stick with the generic "climate change" label in case it goes either way? Can we at least settle on which way the temperature is going to go? Which is it, global warming or global cooling? You can't have your cake and eat it too. -Student Pilot

Yet everyone is talking about global warming. Riffleman, do the events you are talking about sound even remotely like global warming? In the 1960s and 1970s it was global cooling (I even remember seeing a poster in a 6th grade classroom about that when I was in grade school). In the 1990s and 2000s it was/is global warming. Now, it is global warming, but global warming actually causes freezing? Come on... -Student Pilot

Darn that global warming, causing temperatures to drop freeze us all...

Because there is a difference. Human theologians love to add their own "laws" to what was given in the Bible. Many of these "laws" have no theological ground whatsoever. They are, therefore, not God-give religious laws, but rather, man-made laws of what we want God to command to us. The Bible as we know it comes from many ancient texts written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. The church did not "make it" in the middle ages. Again, the commands to individuals and commands to governments are different. Yes, Jesus told us to forgive, and we as individuals need to. But government has the power to punish wrongdoings. This authority extends to imprisonment, capital punishment, and war. If you recall from the Old Testament, Israel had to engage in warfare to found their state, and their warfare was blessed by God. You cannot take something that is meant to be applied to individuals (forgiveness) and apply it to governments. These are two different subjects with two different treatments. -Student Pilot EDIT: Please do not think that I am making this stuff about individuals and governments up out of thin air. I am only repeating what many great Christian theologians have said throughout history. There is general recognition that the state is instituted by God to maintain order while the church is instituted to save mankind

Vilas, you seem to have some serious anger issues. I really do not see the need to use foul language in a civilized debate. Again, the examples you provide in your first paragraph are not God-given law. The Bible says nowhere to not use condoms. That is a man-made Roman Catholic law that I personally do not agree with. As for sex before marriage, yes, the Bible does prohibit that. It falls under the whole "do not commit adultery" thing. And the marriages you describe are not what are pictured in the Bible as being the ideal marriage. Again, we come to the issue of man corrupting something that is supposed to be beautiful and wonderful. Far be it from me to tell you how to make love to your wife. As long as you love her and give yourself only to her, I am not going to tell you how to do it. If you both like oral sex, go for it. If something else tickles your fancy, go for it. Those "prohibitions" are nothing more than man-made laws handed down by prudes and old men who have been prohibited from anything resembling a true, loving, interpersonal relationship (something else I disagree with). "Thou shalt not kill" vs "thou shalt not murder" is a matter of translation from the original Hebrew text. I personally cannot read Hebrew, but many of my friends are seminarians who can and tell me that the context of the verse indicates the proper translation is murder and not kill. Any further, deeper answer from me is definitely going to result in mods telling us to quit this religious conversation (and we've already probably tipped past that point anyway), so I will leave it at that. Regarding the middle ages, I have NEVER said that religion was not involved. Rather, I think you are missing the point of what the REAL reason for the wars were. The purpose of those wars and conflicts, the massacres, and the killings was to consolidate power. During the middle ages, religion was the favorite reason for declaring war, as it gave anyone immunity for their actions. Religion was not the CAUSE of these wars, man's innate desire for power and control was. Religion was only the unfortunate puppet that was used as a means to an end. The Pope may have used God as a motivation to carry out the crusades, but you cannot convince me that the real reason for the crusades was not to take over an invaluable trading spot between Europe and Asia/India. -Student Pilot EDIT: Just out of curiosity Vilas, you mentioned moral relativism. What do you ascribe to? Are you a moral relativist or an absolutist?

Vilas, a lot of the examples you mention in the your first paragraph are not required by the Christian religion. Rather, they are examples of people creating man-made laws and calling them "laws of God". Having certain icons on walls, praying to certain saints, banning certain broad genres of music, ect are man-made and not God-given. Now, certain laws, such as those prohibiting sexual immorality (nude women in media, for example) seem to have a basis in God-given law (thou shalt not commit adultery, which is inclusive of all sexual immorality). Actually, a better translation is "thou shalt not murder". Killing is permissible under certain circumstances, including defending oneself or one's family and in times of war. Also, be careful not to confuse the commandments given to individuals and the commands given to governments. Each have their own purpose and their own guidelines to follow. As for history, I am familiar with the turbulent history of the 10th to 17th centuries. You claim the conflicts are religious in nature, I counter that they were political in nature. Certain parties only used "God" and the promise of "eternal life" to advance their political agendas. Do not believe for one second that the Papacy is only a religious institution and has nothing to do with politics. The many wars fought in the middle ages were more often than not fought between nations and provinces. You are confusing causation with side-effect. Conflict is not caused because of a capitalistic lifestyle. Rather, the capitalistic lifestyle is so popular and works so well because men by nature love conflict. This is the reason no communistic entity has ever worked, nor will ever work. Communism requires perfect harmony, which is impossible due to human nature. Capitalism capitalizes itself (I'm so clever...) on man's natural inclination toward greed and conflict, hence why it works. Capitalism does not result in conflict, instead, conflict produces capitalism. -Student Pilot EDIT: @Herbal Influence Quite frankly, that song scares the hell out of me. You may be right that religion has the propensity to created hatred among men. However, the reason for this is not the religion itself, but rather sinful man's imperfect adherence to religious principles. And I disagree about atheist fanaticism. They may not be religiously fanatical, but there are plenty of atheists that are fanatical when it comes to environmental issues, globalism, capitalism, ect. Just because they are not fanatical about religion doesn't mean fanatical atheists are non-existent. In the same way, just because someone is religious doesn't mean they are fanatical. (In America, it seems to be quite the opposite. Most Americans, contrary to what people may think, are frustratingly ambivalent in their religious beliefs) EDIT EDIT: Btw, Herbal, I cannot comment on the Quran in general. I do not have a sufficient enough understanding of Islam to truly know what it teaches and confesses. My observations come from my Christian beliefs. Someone well-versed in the Quran would have to comment on your point that was made.

The 21st century blowgun :D -Student Pilot

*sigh* Everyone likes to blame religion as the scourge of mankind. Guys, if it wasn't religion, it would be something else. Mankind perverts religion and uses it as a source of power to justify certain means. The actions of the IRA, Catholics and Protestants, Islamic fundamentalists, ect may have been done in the "name" of religion, but were not done in the spirit of or according to the tenets of religion (I'm generalizing here). To reject religion because it "causes" pain and suffering is stupid. Kind of like refusing to eat because it may give you indigestion. There may be other reasons for rejecting religion, but this should not be one of them. Philosophically, arguments can be made for and against religion, so really it comes down to your worldview and who you think you are and where you came from. To me, logically speaking, the existence of God makes more sense than not. Many people feel that way, and you are never going to eliminate religion from the mind of man. So, I'll say it again, if it wasn't religion, it would be something else (land usage, ethnic differences, class differences, political differences, you have a mullet and those are gross, ect). Conflict is embedded in our very nature. -Student Pilot

...as is listening to a radio, eating food, drinking liquids, talking to your passenger(s), thinking about the day's events, fumbling around for cruise control, glancing at the scenery going by, monitoring your speedometer, listening for strange car noises, adjusting the climate controls, ect. Texting on a phone I can see as bad, but talking on a phone? How is that any different than getting into a conversation with a passenger? And don't tell me that talking to passengers is dangerous. It is probably more dangerous to focus solely on the road and get extremely bored/tired/inattentive than it is to break up the monotony with a conversation or two. I use my cell phone when needed as I drive, and I treat it no differently than in in-person conversation. If events warrant my paying attention to the road, I put the conversation on hold until the situation clears itself. -Student Pilot

Heh, you are going to get a load of posts slamming your idea because you dared to put BC2 and Arma2 in the same post. Hopefully by "keeping the controls as in A2" you mean keep everything except the horrible, laggy control feeling that seems ever present since ArmA. Otherwise, not a bad idea. I have been yearning for large urban areas since OFP. It is something that has been lacking with the OFP/ArmA series. -Student Pilot

The Mayans, and they're never wrong.

crap, now you tell me

Wow...Vilas....brevity is not your strongpoint, is it? I am honestly not too sure where your hate of America and the western world comes from. You enjoyed your socialist benefits, that's great. Do you know why you don't get them any more? It is not because the US came in and destroyed your communism/socialism. If you recall, we never invaded eastern Europe or the Soviet Union. And we never would have because of the nuclear deterrent. The reason why you do not get your benefits anymore is because your nations went bankrupt, failed, and formed new governments based loosely on the free market design. The west did not destroy communism, communism destroyed itself because it is NOT a sustainable position. If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that the arrogance of the west is what causes people to hate the west and therefore causes terrorism against the west. If this is not correct please tell me. You are correct, many in the west are arrogant. It comes from our culture of individualism and emphasis on personal achievement. You are correct, we do occasionally try to export our views to the rest of the world. Do you know why? Because we honestly think they work best. Why do we think this? The US is still here (for now) while the communist nations of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union are not. Even China has introduced significant free market reforms in their economy. We also believe that our system of economics maximizes the happiness of the greatest number of people. When people are free to make as good a life for themselves as they possibly can, we think they will be less inclined toward terrorism because they will have more to lose. This is why we have little tolerance for terrorist leaders who do not give their followers that opportunity. Terrorist leaders stoke hatred of the west using religion, economics, politics, what have you so that they remain in power. Does the west cause this hatred? Sometimes, yes. But you know what, no country is perfect and no country ever will be. Sometimes we make mistakes, just as Poland has made mistakes and China has made mistakes. What causes hatred is not the mistakes themselves, but dwelling on those mistakes and refusing to look past them. This is what terrorist leaders do, they cause their followers to dwell on the mistakes and refuse to see the good. Shoot, brevity isn't my strong point either, apparently. One last parting word: there is no need to use offensive language (F***). I understand there is a lot of emotion in these debates, but do not let the emotion rule your thinking. I completely disagree with you and you completely disagree with me, but it doesn't mean we can't be respectful toward one another. -Student Pilot