Italian Man Sues Church over Existance of Jesus

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Sun Feb 12, 2006 5:44 pm

Very true. The Catholic church still don't like offering english translations of the bible. They still claim a "divine right of guardianship over the accuracy of the Sacred Texts and over their interpretation," which is why protestant churches exist.

At the catholic meeting called the "Diet of Worms" (yes, realy - a "diet" is a meeting of the Holy Roman Empire) in 1529, it was decided that where the local church insisted on allowing people to read the bible, and it was too established to be fought by the Papacy, then they would be "allowed to continue to do so" (love it! We can't stop them so we'll allow them to continue!) on the condition that they allowed the Catholics to continue to worship in their boarders. Several important cardinals "protested" this position on the basis that they were the only true church of christ, that these new churches were of the devil, and that they therefore were incapable of allowing catholics to worship freely and would ultimatly destroy the power of the church. Hence, they were called "protestant" churches, in that they were officaly recognised as churches, but that recognision was subject to protest.


The catholic church maintains a fixed, Papal interpretation of the bible, while the protestant churches do not. You cannot be a catholic and believe that, say, condoms are OK. On the other had, both reformists and neo-cons can both claim to be Protistant, even though their interpretation of the bible is destinctly diffrent.

Islam prohibits translating the bible, just as the High Church used to, but they deal with it by encoraging people to learn to read it. In less deloped nations, where there simply isn't time for the population to learn an otherwise useless language, they are as dependant upon the Imans for their spirtual guidence as the people in europe were upon priests in the past, and therefore very easy to manipulate.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
User avatar
prophile
level5
level5
Posts: 1541
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:17 pm
Location: Southampton, UK
Contact:

Postby prophile » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:25 am

Despite the fact that people were being opressed, everything worked. Nowadays, people have all the freedom they want but look what a state the world is in now. Global warming. World Wars. Pollution.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:29 am

How do you figure that?

You think pollution and wars are new? I would suggest getting a good history book and sitting down to a good read.
User avatar
prophile
level5
level5
Posts: 1541
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 4:17 pm
Location: Southampton, UK
Contact:

Postby prophile » Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:53 am

I know wars have been around as long as humans, I said World Wars.

Humanity has never managed to melt* bits of the ozone layer with the amount of pollution it produces before.

*Yes, wrong term, I know, but you get the idea.
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Feb 13, 2006 3:23 am

That's because the chemicals that attack the ozone layer are fairly complicated and are recent creations. The environmental devistation of the past is horrible as well though.
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:59 pm

Have you never heard of Smog? We still use the word, and sometimes you get light smog in shanghi, because the chinese govenment doesn't give a damn about anything except economic growth, but Smog has been pretty much wiped out. Basicaly because it's pretty damn lethal.

The true home of Smog was london, where in 1952 the last true "Smog" killed 12,000 people in five days.

Also in london, in 1858, the house of commons had to be suspended because an unseasonable heat wave caused what is known as "the great stink" (not a word of a lie), as a reaction to which the govenment funded the modern world's first municipal sewage works. Death figures for this, unfortunatly, were not recorded. :wink:
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:18 pm

Yeah, people think air quality is bad now, just think about every building in a city like London once burned coal. Winters in cities a hundred and fifty or more years ago were horrible. Summers weren't very good either come to think of it. :)
User avatar
Lowell
level3
level3
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:03 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Postby Lowell » Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:12 pm

doormat wrote:The true home of Smog was london, where in 1952 the last true "Smog" killed 12,000 people in five days.


I had read about the bad smog there because of all the factory smoke stacks. There are places like that here in the states, like virginia or along the Ohio river there are alot of plants that produce not just smoke and smog but the air burns your eyes and you can't get the taste out of your mouth, even the car will stink for days. That was around the mid 70's haven't been around there sence.

I have seen large amounts of smog comming out of China these days.

Not to mention all the acid rain, didn't that damage the "Black Forest"
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:03 pm

That's the stuff. Acidic particulates in the air. The realy bad smogs were caused by coal dust, and as the worlds largest industrialised city at the time, London had constant smog thoughout most of the late 1800's. The realy bad smogs were caused when atmospheric conditions were just right, and they killed thousands of people. It's never been that bad anywhere else, and hopefully never will be.

As I said, the worst smogs at the moment are in china, because they have little or no econological protection laws, and no infrastructure. The Chinese govement is trying to skip a generation of technology - ignore phone lines, use wireless, ignore power grids, install local generators. This means a lot of small, eco-ugly powerplants all over the landscape.

My father was visiting a firm in shanghi - they were working out of a shed on the outskirts, but the new business they were getting was enough to build a tower block in the city. They showed it to him, half complete. No double glazing, no insulation, no off switches on the lights (!) and independant air con on each floor. My father asked about energy costs. "Not a problem" they said. "We're building our own coal-burner outside the city, just for this building."

Go Figure.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
User avatar
Lowell
level3
level3
Posts: 428
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 8:03 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Contact:

Postby Lowell » Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:31 pm

OMG :!:

No wonder, are they that stupid :?:
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Mon Feb 13, 2006 11:07 pm

Not stupid. Without a tax or legal system to prevent it, that is the cheapest way to build a tower block. A dedicated coal burner costs less to run in China, and western building techniques are very expensive. I'd guess it would take decades to pay back the investment - and the Chinese aren't thinking long-term at the moment.

That's a policy issue, not an inteligence one. And as China develops as a market, they will have to adopt western ecological policy or they will start to suffer from smog and polution just as we did in the past.

It'll be a messy time for the west untill they do, though, since they will be much cheaper than we are, and our expertise advantage won't last forever. Expect to see China emerge as a serious world power in the next few years - and I would anticipate a decline in the status of the US to correspond to that, rather than a cold-war style balance.

This assumes that china embraces democratic reform, of course. Otherwise they will reach the economic threashold for revolution long before this becomes an issue. Free markets can only exist along side democracy - no other polictical system can avoid bribery or command production. China cannot stay communist and compete with the west in this way for long - either they will restrict their markets too much and limit their growth, or they will open their markets too much and suffer revolution.

But I think they are smart enough to move to democracy slowly. We'll see. This, along with the fuel issue, will be the story of our generation, I'm sure of it.
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
Stewsburntmonkey
level5
level5
Posts: 11553
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2002 7:44 pm
Location: Nashville, TN
Contact:

Postby Stewsburntmonkey » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:43 am

Actually China has some of the strictest environmental laws in the world. They just have a hard time enforcing them. I assume massive corruption doesn't help. :)
doormat
level4
level4
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 1:07 pm

Postby doormat » Tue Feb 14, 2006 7:35 pm

The "laws" in china are a joke, stews, because they pretty much just pass whatever looks good. The courts take their direction from the party.

China has free speach in law, but not in practice.

But your right, the word I used should have been "policy".
If Barbie is so popular, why do you have to buy her friends?
User avatar
ChasM
level2
level2
Posts: 211
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:47 pm
Location: Arizona Desert

Postby ChasM » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:01 am

When I was a teen in Southern California, circa 1966,
L.A. County Schools shut down my high school along with many others, due to smog.
I think the hydrocarbon emmissions restrictions for new cars had only been in place for two years.
After thinking 'bout it, hydrocarbons wern't the only culprit, and the HC restrictions INCREASED the nitrous oxides output.
People died over this chemistry mistake. Legal or not.

Brown sky is brown sky. Where I live now is beautiful blue all year.
'course it's only two miles from a large nuclear power plant. . .
That plant has only five traffic signals within a radius of twenty miles.
Sparse population is the answer.
Funny how no one thinks like I do about this.
(-: Chas.M. :-)
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:14 pm

ChasM wrote:Sparse population is the answer.
Funny how no one thinks like I do about this.

Certainly, sparse population is the answer. But how do you suggest that the 6 some odd billion people who live on this planet live in a less centralized manner? There simply is not enough land.

xander

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests