A kind-hearted fellow was walking through Central Park in New York and was astonished to see an old man, fishing rod in hand, fishing over a beautiful bed of red roses.
"Tsk Tsk!" said the passerby to himself. "What a sad sight. That poor old man is fishing over a bed of flowers. I'll see if I can help." So the kind fellow walked up to the old man and asked, "What are you doing, my friend?"
"Fishin', sir."
"Fishin', eh. Well how would you like to come have a drink with me?"
The old man stood, put his rod away and followed the kind stranger to the corner bar. He ordered a large glass of vodka and a fine cigar.
His host, the kind fellow, felt good about helping the old man, and he asked, "Tell me, old friend, how many did you catch today?"
The old fellow took a long drag on the cigar, blew a careful smoke ring and replied, "You are the sixth today, sir!"
hahaha - i so agree with Coleen on this and so sympathise with you - the only addition i can make to the excellent brekkie idea is a couple of painkillers
I see the attempts to hijack this thread into the debate on the proofs of christianity as being equally absurd to the the opening post and these forms of fundamentlist behaviour as extremely bad form.
The question here, although worded differently is not wholly unlike the claims of Christianity and a disbelief in which, faces us with the points posed by Pascals Wager, this assumes that it is safer to hedge our bets in favour of God and Heaven etc. just in case we arrive there as unbelievers and suffer hellfire and damnation for eternity for not having lived 'spreading the word'
An alternative supposition;
You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in God. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent God, he may judge you on your merits coupled with your commitments, and not just on whether or not you believed in him.
i so agree with you - the sooner they all realise that we are all mutually dependent and stop all the guff about stronger economies the better - we have one earth and we better start looking after it and each other before its too late
i dont see how anybody can win - people seem to be invading countries for oil that they dont actually need - is this just so the other guy doesnt get it - the chinese are in darfur with their non interventionist policies and building the expected yield there to something like 500,000 barrels - the chinese and the russians are becoming great buddies and the chinese are in the position of seeking street cred cos they have to have a good face for the public for the forthcoming olympic games- at the end of the day oil is the new gold, is all i seem to know
I wouldnt be able to not say something personally - even if its just something like relating the tale of a ficticious friend on who that sort of thing backfired - or just out and say that he could be making problems for himself in the long run - if he is a friend he will know where you are coming from and it may give him food for thought - he is teaching the child disrespect at the end of the day and ok, you may have a couple of uncomfortable days if he takes it the wrong way - just start out the conversation by asking if he minds you making a personal observation and assure him you dont mean to hurt his feelings etc
i read some reports yesterday about Bush injecting testosterone a couple of years back - if all those world leaders are it then that would explain a huge lot of stuff - sounds crazy doesnt it but theres quite a bit obout it on google
many religions teach that to achieve this state you must adhere to their rules - not to follow a religion doesnt mean that this wont happen or that any good hearted person is less deserving of rewards in the afterlife - people have been controlled by various religions for centuries by these and other such notions of social manipulation
i think that despite the language difficulty the message came through loud and clear - again i hope i am wrong - i would like to pass it back to you - could you live without religion like materialist and secularist without any ambition, is this what living without religion actually means to you ? to live like an animal ?
Thanks Jacko - im trying to get to the bottom of it myself - all too often people assume too soon i think but i am inclined to your way of thinking here. But so what, if the guy wants different opinions then lets all chat and not shout at him - thats what politicians do and look at they way they storm out of peace talks
please excuse my amusement here, an ANKLE is where the leg joins the foot. The word you seek is ANGLE. Also please note that writing in all capital letters is considered bad form - i say these things in friendship.
Often with language difficulties things dont sound the way they are meant to and i hope I have misunderstood you. You seem to be saying that unless a person has a religious belief then they are not very nice people - to my mind, arguing about religion has brought much trouble for many centuries to mankind
come to think of it, neither does it render a person materialistic, secularistic ar without ambition - i think that was possibly meant when it was suggested this may not be the correst place for your question - if, however you are thnking of trying - ask away - personally i havent faced more hell fire or damnation than my believing brothers and sisters
it doesent - but it would like to - to save the dollar which is increasingly under threat. The oil market has been controlled by the dollar, a situation which is on the change.
"The effect of an OPEC switch to the euro would be that oil-consuming nations would have to flush dollars out of their (central bank) reserve funds and replace these with euros. The dollar would crash anywhere from 20-40% in value and the consequences would be those one could expect from any currency collapse and massive inflation (think Argentina currency crisis, for example). You'd have foreign funds stream out of the U.S. stock markets and dollar denominated assets, there'd surely be a run on the banks much like the 1930s, the current account deficit would become unserviceable, the budget deficit would go into default, and so on. Your basic 3rd world economic crisis scenario."
Is a global economy such an outlandish suggestion - helping each other rather than perpetuating all this warring
Darfur Oil could result in second Cold War By Todd Flagg 21 May 2007 at 02:37 PM
In an editorial for Financial Sense, William Engdahl asks why the U.S. administration should be more interested in Darfur.
“What’s at stake in the battle for Darfur? Control over oil, lots and lots of oil,” Engdahl says.
Engdahl asserts that China is becoming the premier importer of African oil, offering zero-interest loans to developing African nations. And as the U.S. continues to make enemies by taking counterterrorist measures in these countries, China is befriending nations such as Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon and Sudan.
China's CNOC will lift the oil in Nigeria, via a consortium that also includes South African Petroleum Co. giving China access to what could be 175,000 barrels a day by 2008. It’s a $2.27 billion deal that gives state-controlled CNOC a 45% stake in a large off-shore Nigeria oil field. China takes up to 65% to 80% of Sudan’s 500,000 barrels/day of oil production. Sudan last year was China’s fourth largest foreign oil source.
“Darfur and Chad are but an extension of the U.S. Iraq policy “with other means”—control of oil everywhere,” Engdahl says. “China is challenging that control “everywhere,” especially in Africa. It amounts to a new undeclared Cold War over oil.”
the terrorists in Darfur are the dictators running the government - erreatic supplies of food wont help for more than a few days or weeks at at time - you assume a lot in suggesting that I am not part in helping
trish123 Forum Posts (13,724)
RE: Monday Morning.....Fun.....
Mornin Crazy, how you doin