What will be this centuries WW2?

[FrostyBoy]

What is a 1st world country exactly?

If a 1st world country is just a primitive civilization, then we should leave them alone.

However if a 1st cworld country is a dying, wartorn, civilization then we should help them into whatever level they are happy with. We should not make all countries like western and some asian developed countries. The world needs culture, the people need a reason to see other parts of the world. Variety = progress; America knows that.

I think for the 21st century, the big movements will be:

- China and India will become world-leaders, but I don't believe the term 'leader' will be as highly emphasized as it is today.

- The world's population and culture will be so well mixed up, that almost no country on earth will be native to just one culture/race

- We will discover life outside of Earth, and we will find a lot of it.

- Religions will mature and merge closer and closer into a more scientific way of understanding.

- Automation

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
Just out of curiosity, what was the 19th Century's WWII?

The Napoleanic Wars


As for this century's? My worst fear is that it will be the Islamic world vs. a coalition of U.S., India, Israel and central Africa. What a pointless bloodbath that would be. Indeed, it would be this century's WWI, not WWII.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Sn00py
What is a 1st world country exactly?

Generally, a fully industrialized country with a high standard of living.

[lord of the mark]

Krzy horse

I dont know if the things JC said were antisemitic, its a while since I read the Gospels all the way through. I do think there are a number of references to the Pharisees that are bad mischarecterizations, and I would consider hateful, and ISTR some other passages about Jews in general that are bad, but Im not sure which are from JC and which are from the narrator. And Id say theres more hostility to the Jews and Judaism in the Pauline epistles than in the gospels, but then they are also part of the NT.

Im dont think id be willing to characterize the NT overall as antisemitic, but theres definitely enough problematic material in it(acknowledging of course that every text requires interpretation, and its possible to aggresively reintreprate the NT, just as the NT authors aggressively reinterprate the Hebrew Bible), as even many modern Christian scholars acknowledge, that Id hardly say that someone calling it antisemitic qualifies him as a loon, which I read you as implying.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
So who of you are right then? Or can we safely assume that everyone has their own little fairy tale?

The truth of G-d is somewhere back there, behind the stories we humans write in our efforts to reach out toward him. I can have a loyalty to a faith tradition, without asserting its Absolute Truth over and against all other faith traditions. Thats not always an easy position to hold, but I think its the only viable one. Its why I dont as a rule argue against Christians Jesus story. Im sure it does express, in its own way a truth about G-d. Instead I look to what Christians do with that. Some do good, some dont. Many do good on some things but not others.


As long as they dont try to impose THEIR narrative on me. In which case I WILL respond with why I think my faith tradition is particularly positive. But I dont choose a disputation. The very concept behind a disputation is hubristic I think - representing an attempt to know the unknowable - or at least what cant be known by disputation.

[Jon Miller]

Err, so Jesus not getting a long with a section of the Jews (the Pharisees) implies some sort of antisemiticism?

Almost all the people in the Gospels are Jews..

Basically, not getting along with 1 faction != antisemiticism.

Pharisees != Jews...

Jon Miller

[joncha]

Careful! The next thing you know, you'll be saying that Israel != Jews...

[Harry Tuttle]

nm

[Dr Strangelove]

I think that the Chinese and the Indians have many problems to solve before they take the place of the Americans and the Europeans. The US can feed itself with only 1 to 2% of its population engaged in farming because the US has vast plains of arable land. but China's situation will dictate that a substantially larger portion of its population will have to be devoted to farming, and this will hold it back. China's radical solution to overpopulation, the severe limitation of family size will eventually lead to a maldistriubtion of the population with respect to age. The relative lack of young workers years from now will harm their economy. Finally I think that eventually the socialist state will become an albatross around China's neck.

India hasn't even begun to effectively deal with its population explosion. It willeventually blow up on them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Err, so Jesus not getting a long with a section of the Jews (the Pharisees) implies some sort of antisemiticism?

Almost all the people in the Gospels are Jews..

Basically, not getting along with 1 faction != antisemiticism.

Pharisees != Jews...

Jon Miller

The pharisees are not a minor faction, but one of the two main groupings at the time. They happen to be the grouping that led to rabbinic Judaism, the ancestor of modern Judaism. I know JC couldnt anticipate (oops, Im not sure if what i just said could be seen as anti-christian ) but reading the document, those lines are troubling. They dont make the NT antisemitic. But when i look at other elements that are more supercessionist, they add to my discomfort with the overall book.

and of course the individuals were Jews. But christianity as expressed by Paul certainly distinguishes the Church (including those Jews who followed JC) from the rest of "old" Israel. Im not sure how much each gospel does.

[Dr Strangelove]

It's safe to say that Christ repeatedly put down the Pharisees and the rich. It's apparent that he at the same time intended to fulfill Jewish scripture and at the same time intended to create a religion different from current Jewish practice as he saw it. You have to also consider that non-Jews were only sparsely scattered through out the gospels. Despite the roles played by Pilate, the Samaritan and a few others they barely figure into the story, but after all wasn't that the nature of the society in which Jesus lived? In ancient Galilean, Judean and Israeli society early in the era of Roman occupation the Jews lived apart from non-Jewish peoples. One wouldn't expect non-Jews to have played a bigger role in the Gospel story, nor would Jesus have had much opportunity to include them. There are passages in the NT where people point out the immorality of the gentiles surrounding the Jewish society, but Jesus always calls them back to look at their own shortcomings. That's not because Jesus despises his Jewish audience, but instead it is the nature of this teaching

[The Emperor Fabulous]

What an odd thread...

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by CyberShy


Why is it "who of you" and not "who of us"?
Or are you believing the fairy tale that your fairy tale is no fairy tale?

I'll tell you a little story.
In those days when all computers had dos 6.2 installed my friend told me about windows (3.11 of course)
He told me that it would be possible to run multiple applications at the same time!
I tell you: I had no clue how that would be possible! I was like: "Will the screen switch quickly between both apps so that I can see them both at the same time?"
I was totally amazed and didn't understand at all how that would be possible.
The concept of windows was way beyond my idea of possibilities.

Does that mean that windows didn't exist?
Is it like: "If you can't understand it, it doesn't exist!" or something? If I can't see it, it's not there..........

That's a little bit like playing hide and seek with my little nephew. He closes his eyes and says: "You can't see me since I can't see you. buwhahahahahaha"

your "believers are idiots buwhahahahaha" buwhahahahaha is a little bit like his

Just to answer your question: I am right

I think this comes down to more of an issue of your limited wit. Again, another completely irrelevant analogy...

[Velociryx]

Dr. Stranelove:

I think that the Chinese and the Indians have many problems to solve before they take the place of the Americans and the Europeans. The US can feed itself with only 1 to 2% of its population engaged in farming because the US has vast plains of arable land. but China's situation will dictate that a substantially larger portion of its population will have to be devoted to farming, and this will hold it back. China's radical solution to overpopulation, the severe limitation of family size will eventually lead to a maldistriubtion of the population with respect to age. The relative lack of young workers years from now will harm their economy. Finally I think that eventually the socialist state will become an albatross around China's neck.

India hasn't even begun to effectively deal with its population explosion. It willeventually blow up on them.

Shhhh! Stop raining on the collective parade of everybody who's just completely convinced that China and India will have themselves even close to sorted out enough to eclipse the west in power anytime this century.

Never mind the fact that it would take an unbroken cycle of growth of something like 250 years to reach that point (similar to what they got now, with no snags or blips along the way), no corruption issues, no steps backwards, no monetary crisises, no transition issues (including the one you mentioned re: farming), and never mind the fact that China's population is actually shrinking just now (which mirrors much of Europe, but the USA's is still increasing, and will, for the forseeable future). Then let's ignore the fact that the PPP index specifically says that it's inaccurate for developing nations--by as much as 50% (but that's the number everyone here prefers, cos it makes the doom and gloom talk much more convincing).

Don't mention all that stuff. It's bad form.

-=Vel=-

[FrostyBoy]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Generally, a fully industrialized country with a high standard of living.

Oh yah, I got the numbers mixed around, man I must have been really tired.