Don’t think I hadn’t noticed the monumental faux pas you made, detailed below, before you hastily removed it from your posting of 9.56pm January 23rd 2001.

You said - "Because I AM GOD, I DO have a certain appreciation for the work of Donald Sinden and Charlton Heston (IMO, he really DID Moses! YEAH!), however, neither of these gifted men (YES, I DID give them their gifts!) could ever BE JEWISH!"

I had intended to ignore the matter and save you from further embarrassment and humiliation, until I noticed the above statement was missing.

Whilst not wishing to rub salt into your already gaping, and soon to be gangrenous wound, what has Jesus got to do with how people envisage the appearance of God? And anyway, quite apart from Heston’s convincing (in your opinion) performance as the heavily Jewish Moses, Sinden gained many plaudits for his flavourful portrayal of Shylock (no-one more Jewish) in The Merchant of Venice at the Bristol Old Vic in 1954. According to the wildly speculative fiction of the bible, Jesus was the Earthly manifestation of Jehovah, whereas God himself is all things to all men, in other words God exists in a multiplicity of forms – so, you would not necessarily have to be Jewish to portray God.

However, you are right when you say I cannot prove your existence – but someone deleted the above statement of ineptitude.

PS – I extend my thanks to the multitude of fellow board members who kindly e-mailed me to inform me of Chris Kinsinger’s original version of the infamous posting of 9.56pm January 23rd 2001 – I had no idea there were so many of you.

The point is John, in his original posting, Chris was trying to say that Charlton Heston could not convincingly play a Jew, whilst also praising him for playing Moses, who was one of the most famous Jews in history…..

Marian, I wonder if your "lobster chips" are similar to any of the various forms of "shrimp chips." In New York, some Chinese restaurants serve ghastly styrofoam-like bits of baked (I think) ... flour substitute? God knows it doesn't taste like real food. All dyed largely in colors that rarely occur in nature. I don't know what the hell they're made of, but I hate them. They seem generally to be used as purposeless, flavorless -- but oh-so-crunchy! -- garnish. I believe they are also common in Chinese restaurants in the UK, but haven't been there in ten years. Thought I saw a reference to them in the first Adrian Mole book by Sue Townsend, however (called "prawn balls," if memory serves.)

A far tastier variation of shrimp chips, made principally in Japan and Korea, and also widely available throughout America, are basically wheat puffs with an MSG flavoring, posing as a shrimp flavor. These are sold in snack bags. Although I can see where they might not be to everyone's taste.

I could go on ad nauseam (literally!) about other peculiar forms of crispy treats the Asians produce, but it's already way past my bedtime. (Okay, here's one more: octopus-and-curry-flavored corn curlies, from Japan's Meiji Karu. Their cheese variation is excellent, however.) And don't even get me started on the things they allege to be "pizza."

and what is it with the recent Asian obsession with piling MAYONNAISE on everything????

They're often used as a "bed" for various sorts of meat to resorb the fat, so even if I eat the roast duck and don't touch the chips, at least they serve a purpose.

What I dislike far more is this horrible warm plum wine (or whatever it's called) you always get after the meal in a Chinese restaurant (at least here in Austria).

But aside from that, I dig Chinese food.

...interesting to see how this thread keeps returning to gastronomic topics every few weeks.

BRITONS WITH BALLS – Part VI subsection A

Sir James Murray

Born Feb 7, 1837, Denholm, Roxburghshire, Scoland
Died July 26, 1915, Oxford, Oxfordshire, England

Scottish lexicographer and first editor (from 1879) of A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, now known as The Oxford English Dictionary. He was knighted in 1908.

Excitingly, Mel Gibson is due to play Murray in the forthcoming filmization of Simon Winchester’s book. The true story involves the Scottish academic befriending a murderer to produce the first Oxford Dictionary. In what will be one of Gibson's most challenging roles, the actor will star as the ninteenth century eccentric who rode around Oxford on a tricycle and spent decades compiling the dictionary that was to define standard English throughout the world.

Murray became obsessed with his colossal task and welcomed the help of an American doctor, Dr W C Minor, who carefully researched and submitted definitions for the dictionary. For 20 years, Murray received letters from Minor containing his erudite contributions. The letters came from Broadinoor, which Murray assumed was Dr Minor's estate in the English countryside. In fact it was an English hospital for the criminally insane where Minor was sent in 1872 after the wealthy Harvard graduate inexplicably killed a stranger in London. It is expected that Robin Williams will play the role of the mad Amencan.

The film rights of The Surgeon of Crowthorne, the book by Simon Winchester that tells the story, were sold after ferocious bidding last year to the French director Luc Bresson, but now Gibson's production company, Icon, has entered into a co-production deal to film the story.

Gibson also appeared on BBC television recently joking about when has was asked about the James Murray part, and saying 'I said ....Och, I think I could play that part ...' in a mock Scottish/Braveheart accent.

Sir James Murray was a grammar-school teacher from 1855 to 1885, during which time he also wrote a famous article on the English language for Encyclopædia Britannica (1878) and served as president of the Philological Society (1878-1880, 1882-1884). He undertook the editing of a vast dictionary that was intended as an inventory of words used in English from the mid-12th century and, in some instances, from earlier dates. Construction of the dictionary was to be grounded on strict historical and descriptive principles, and each definition was to be accompanied by an example, including date, of usage. The first section, A-Ant, appeared in 1884, printed at the Clarendon Press, Oxford. From 1885 until his death, Murray lived at Oxford, working with a staggering volume of materials and completing about half of the dictionary, sections A-D, H-K, O, P, and T. It was his organization that made completion of the great undertaking possible.

BRITONS WITH BALLS – Part VI subsection B

General James Murray

Born Jan 21, 1721, Ballencrieff, East Lothian, Scotland
Died June 18, 1794, near Battle, Sussex, England

British soldier who was military and civilian governor of Quebec in 1760-68.

Murray joined the army in 1740 and served in the British West Indies and Europe. Sent to British North America in 1757 as a lieutenant colonel during the forth French and Indian War, in 1758 he commanded a brigade during the successful British siege of Louisbourg, in what is now Nova Scotia, under Lord Amherst. He was one of General James Wolfe's three brigadiers in the stunning British victory over the French in Quebec in 1759. After the British captured the city, Murray was made its military governor. When the French capitulated in 1760, he became military governor of Quebec district; he became the first civil governor of Quebec after its formal cession to Great Britain in 1763.

As governor, Murray opposed repressive measures against the Catholic French-Canadians, and his conciliatory policy led to charges against him of partiality. Although exonerated, he left his post in 1768 and was appointed governor of British Minorca in 1774. He was made a General in 1782.

BRITONS WITH BALLS – Part VI subsection C

James Murray Mason

Born Nov 3, 1798, Fairfax County, Virginai, United States
Died April 28, 1871, Alexandria, Virginia

US senator of British ancestry from Virginia who took the Confederate cause to Great Britain.

Although raised a Tidewater aristocrat, Mason graduated from the University of Pennsylvania and, after studying law at the College of William and Mary, set up his practice in the Virginia back country. He served in the state legislature from 1826 to 1832 (except for 1827) and one term in the US House of Representatives (1837-39) before being appointed in 1847 to fill an unexpired Senate term.

Re-elected for terms beginning in 1849 and 1855, Mason allied himself closely with other states'-rights Southern Democrats in the Senate. With Abraham Lincoln's election in 1860, Mason advocated Southern secession and resigned his Senate seat to join the Confederacy.

Mason then accepted appointment by Pres. Jefferson Davis to serve as Confederate commissioner to England. Accompanied by John Slidell, he sailed for England aboard the British ship "Trent." The "Trent" was captured at sea by a US naval vessel, and the two Confederate diplomats were imprisoned for two months in Boston.

The Trent Affair nearly caused a severance of diplomatic relations between the US and Great Britain, and almost precipitated a declaration of war from Britain, but on Jan 1, 1862, Pres. Lincoln bowed to pressure from England and ordered the release of Mason and Slidell, and the two emissaries made their way to London. In England, however, Mason was able to make little progress in winning official support for the Confederate cause.

The Trent Affair (1861) almost brought the global might of the British Empire crashing down on the still developing United States. On Nov 8, 1861, Captain Charles Wilkes, commanding the Union frigate San Jacinto, seized from the neutral British ship Trent the two Confederate commissioners who were seeking the support of England for the cause of the Confederacy.

Despite initial rejoicing by the Northern populace and Congress, this unauthorized seizure aroused a storm of indignant protest and demands for war throughout the British Empire. The British government sent an ultimatum demanding an American apology and the release of Mason and Slidell. To avert armed conflict, Secretary of State William Seward, on December 26, replied that Wilkes had erred in failing to bring the Trent into port for adjudication, thus violating America's policy of freedom of the seas. The Confederate commissioners were released shortly thereafter. With hindsight, it is somewhat surprising that Great Britain did not use the ‘Trent Affair’ as a reason to regain its American colonies lost in 1783.

Mason did not return to North America until 1866, and he stayed in British Canada - afraid of being arrested as an important official of the defeated Confederacy - until 1868. Following Pres. Andrew Johnson's second proclamation of amnesty in 1868, however, Mason returned to Virginia, where he lived his final years.

I think you will find it a fascinating listen. Carter manages to seamlessly combine classical film-scoring techniques with heavy metal/electronica. I never would have thought it would work ... I CERTAINLY never thought I'd like it ... but WOW!

The score succeeds in spades. It crosses all boundaries in a truly "contemporary" fashion. What's more, this method PERFECTLY serves the needs of the film, which is about the collision of two worlds -- "the romantic, haunted past with the fast-paced, techno future." (Glen Murakami, Producer)

BRITONS WITH BALLS – part VII

Sir Ferdinando Gorges

Born 1566 Wraxall, Somerset, England
Died 1647, Long Ashton, Bristol, England

British proprietary founder of Maine, who promoted the colonization of New England along aristocratic lines.

After a colourful military career in his early manhood, during which he was knighted (1591), Gorges' life after 1605 was dominated by attempts to gain royal sanction for various settlement schemes in North America.

He felt that colonizing should be a royal endeavour and that colonies should be kept under rigid control from London. In 1620 Gorges succeeded in obtaining a charter to develop the Council for New England - a proprietary grant covering the entire area in North America between the 40th and 48th parallels. He intended to distribute the land as manors and fiefs to fellow gentry who were members of the Council but was thwarted by the success of two vigorous, middle-class, self-governing English colonies founded by joint-stock companies at Plymouth and Massachusetts Bay. Since these New England settlements had received their charters directly from the crown, the Council was thus bypassed as an intermediary.

Gorges was the recipient of several land grants during his lifetime, most importantly the charter for Maine in 1639. Although he and his agents set up a provincial government there, the English Civil Wars and Gorges' advancing age prevented him from fulfilling his American dream.

"Don’t think I hadn’t noticed the monumental faux pas you made, detailed below, before you hastily removed it from your posting of 9.56pm January 23rd 2001.

You said - "Because I AM GOD, I DO have a certain appreciation for the work of Donald Sinden and Charlton Heston (IMO, he really DID Moses! YEAH!), however, neither of these gifted men (YES, I DID give them their gifts!) could ever BE JEWISH!"

Yes, boys...but the above quote is not the ENTIRE quote, as you both well know.

I was jokingly posting as "The Voice Of God", which you have naturally chosen not to mention.

It matters not.
God still loves you both, as do I.

"Whilst not wishing to rub salt into your already gaping, and soon to be gangrenous wound, what has Jesus got to do with how people envisage the appearance of God?"

Have you ever read either the Old or the New Testament?

JESUS APPEARS in every single Book of the Old Testament. Every single time that a person beheld God...they were looking at JESUS!

I didn't expect you to know that, but it is a fact.

Daniel, WHAT exactly DO you KNOW about Jesus, anyway? So far, I'd say very nearly nothing at all.

NP: The Bishop's Wife Friedhofer

BRITONS WITH BALLS – part VIII

Thomas Jefferson

Born April 13, 1743, Shadwell, Albemarle County, Virginia, British North America
Died July 4, 1826, Monticello, Nr Charlottesville, Virginia, USA

Famed English-American politician who became third President of the USA (1801-9). Jefferson was descended from the Jeffersons of Suffolk, England on his father’s side, and from the Randolph’s of England on his mother’s side.

His ‘A Summary View of the Rights of British America’ (1774) provided a very reasonable blueprint for the future development of British North America, but sadly it wasn’t to be, mainly because of British intransigence. Jefferson insisted on the autonomy of colonial legislative power and set forth a highly individualistic view of the basis of American rights. This belief that the American colonies and other members of the British Empire were distinct states united under the king and thus subject only to the king and not to Parliament was shared by several other delegates, notably James Wilson and John Adams, and strongly influenced the Congress. When the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in May 1775, most of the leaders still hoped for reconciliation with ‘mother England’; but news of clashes between British troops and Massachusetts militia at Lexington and Concord (April 19) stirred the delegates to action. Steps were taken to put the continent on a war footing. While a further desperate appeal was addressed to the British people (mainly on John Dickinson's insistence), the Congress raised an army, adopted a Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, and appointed committees to deal with domestic supply and foreign affairs. In August 1775 the King of England declared a state of rebellion; by the end of the year, all colonial trade was banned. Even yet, General George Washington, commander of the Continental Army, still referred to the British troops as ‘ministerial’ forces, indicating a civil war, not a war looking to separate national identity. And this is the crucial mistake that many people (including historians and filmmakers) make. Thanks to such politically-correct distortions of history as THE PATRIOT, some people look back on 1776 North America as Americans versus British – in reality, it was British versus British, as over 80% of the people of North America at the time were of British extraction. Therefore, the American War of Independence was about the British people fighting the British establishment. At the start of the war, independence was the furthest thing from British Americans’ minds, as George Washington’s words testify.

Jefferson was a delegate to the House of Burgesses (1769-75) and to the Continental Congress (1775-6). He drafted the Declaration of Independence, was active in Virginia during the War of Independence, and was governor of the state (1779-81). A slave owner who favoured gradual emancipation, he never felt able to implement such a policy. After service as US minister to France (1785-9), he was Washington's first Secretary of State. His opposition to Hamilton's economic policies led to his resignation in 1794. He later became leader of the Democratic-Republican Party and was Vice-President under John Adams before becoming President in 1801. His administration was marked by retrenchment and reduction in the scale of government itself, but also by the Tripolitan War, which ended tribute payment to Barbary pirates, the Louisiana Purchase, the Lewis and Clark expedition (the first overland expedition to the Pacific Coast of America), and the Embargo Act in defence of the US neutral rights. Jefferson, who believed in the virtues of an agrarian republic and a weak central government, has been a uniquely influential figure in the evolution of the American political tradition.

Jefferson's political career was undoubtedly impressive, but it was far from absorbing all of the energy, time, and talent of the man himself. He probably enjoyed politics more than he was willing to admit; it is also true that his often-expressed longing to retire to private life and pursue his other interests was very real. These interests were numerous and varied.

He was an extraordinarily learned man, and the range of his knowledge and inquiry is scarcely credible in the modern age of specialization. He knew Latin, Greek, French, Spanish, Italian, and Anglo-Saxon and concerned himself with such questions as the difference between the ancient and modern pronunciation of Greek. At the age of 71 he tackled Plato's Republic in the original and found its author greatly overrated. He attempted an analysis of the New Testament in order to discover what Jesus really said as distinguished from what he was reported to have said. He enjoyed the study of mathematics and found its precision and certitude a welcome relief from the untidiness of politics and government. He was an ardent student of the natural sciences, carried on an extensive correspondence with such men as Joseph Priestley, and sometimes contributed time and money to progress in these fields. The discovery of fossil remains in various parts of the country fascinated him, and he tried to collect and classify as many as he could. He was much interested in the experiments with balloons and submarines then being made, and, while he was abroad, he sent back to his friends at home various mechanical and scientific gadgets produced in England, including a polygraph and phosphorus matches. His travel notes record impressions ranging from nearly ecstatic admiration of architectural monuments to sober economic analysis of the reasons for the differences in prosperity between regions producing white and red wine.

He was an enthusiastic practitioner of scientific farming, conducted numerous experiments at Monticello, was always on the lookout for some new plant or seed that might contribute to the prosperity of the United States (once going so far as to smuggle a particular variety of rice across the Italian border); kept meticulous meteorological records; and, as a keen linguist, instigated the first systematic collection of American Indian dialect. His interest in architecture was intense and enduring, and his influence on the Neoclassical style in the United States was great.

The pursuit of these various interests concurrently with his political activities and the management of his estates (which included several thousand acres and at one time about 150 slaves) is remarkable. To this record of industry must be added the voluminous correspondence Jefferson maintained with extraordinary conscientiousness until very near his death. He could have accomplished so much only through rigorous self-discipline and an efficient organization of his time and activities. Yet, he was one of the most generous and approachable of men. Friends and strangers alike wrote to him for advice or came to Monticello when he was in residence. Relatives and guests filled Monticello to capacity - sometimes beds were made for as many as 50 people - and devoured his food as well as his time. For privacy he retreated several times a year to Poplar Forest, a second home built as a refuge in Bedford County.

Jefferson was 6 feet 2 inches in height, large boned, slim, erect, and sinewy. He had angular features, a ruddy complexion, sandy hair, and hazel-flecked grey eyes. His carriage was relaxed and somewhat awkward, and by 18th-century standards he seems to have been regarded as pleasant rather than handsome in appearance. He was sensitive and perceptive in personal relations, gracious and charming in manner (though sometimes cold upon first meeting strangers), and almost invariably even tempered. As a matter of both principle and inclination, he attempted to prevent political differences from creating personal ill will, and though he was subjected to malicious abuse during the political controversies in which he was involved, he endured it with relative equanimity and felt genuine animosity toward only a very few of his opponents and critics.

Because he was so central a figure, so widely known, so articulate, and so meticulous in preserving his letters and papers, it is possible to reconstruct a remarkably complete account of his career and his work. Yet, the man himself - the private man - remains elusive. There was a reserve of privacy that he kept inviolate. For example, no letters exchanged between him and his wife exist. Their marriage was, by contemporary accounts, an extraordinarily happy one, and it would therefore appear that Jefferson destroyed whatever letters once existed in order to keep their relationship forever private. Jefferson was, as his modern editor has suggested, ultimately a lonely man.

Ten days before his death, Jefferson replied to an invitation to join the residents of Washington, D.C., in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence. He could not attend because of illness, but he sent his best wishes, and, of the Declaration that was to be celebrated, he wrote:

”May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self government.”

While Jefferson grew steadily weaker at Monticello, his old friend John Adams was nearing death in Massachusetts. It seems certain from the accounts of friends and relatives of both that each man wanted badly to live until the 50th anniversary of the day that symbolized the central endeavour and achievement of their lives. They succeeded. Jefferson died shortly before one o'clock on the afternoon of July 4, 1826; Adams died a few hours later, his last words said to have been, ‘Jefferson still survives’. Jefferson was buried at Monticello. The epitaph that he had chosen was inscribed on his tombstone – ‘Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of American Independence, of the statute of Virginia for religious freedom, and father of the University of Virginia’.

You said – ”I was jokingly posting as "The Voice Of God", which you have naturally chosen not to mention.”

Yes…..well….so what? We all know you were jokingly posting as God, but that wasn’t the issue.

The point is Chris, in your original posting, you were trying to say that Charlton Heston could not convincingly play a Jew, whilst also praising him for playing Moses, who was one of the most famous Jews in history…..if that isn’t a faux pas of monumental proportions, why did you remove the posting?

As it happens, Heston has played God in 1990’s ALMOST AN ANGEL. One reviewer said in his appraisal of the movie, “….Heston plays God (quite naturally).”

As if all that wasn’t enough, you then pronounce – ”JESUS APPEARS in every single Book of the Old Testament.”

I know enough about the bible to realize that much of it is open to interpretation. But such a conclusion as you have come to above is truly speculative, and not based on even the Bible’s superstitious, fabricated, false and conjured version of reality. Your interpretation of Jesus’s appearances within the Old Testament is merely a case of further fabrication of that which has already been fabricated. It’s like a UFO enthusiast photographing a hubcap suspended from a tree and claiming it to be evidence of flying saucers….he may believe that alien abductions exist, but he will go to any lengths, including fabrication of evidence, to ‘prove’ his belief. The same is true of many Police Departments when they place evidence to increase the chances of a conviction of someone they believe is guilty of the crime in hand. Such ‘fabrication’ of evidence does not disprove the existence of God or aliens, but it does have the effect of invalidating such claims in many peoples’ eyes….including mine. Indeed, in the case of corrupted police investigations, such fabrication of evidence has led to the release of guilty men because of police tampering with evidence.

According to the bible, God was manifest in the flesh…as Jesus….but this does not mean to say that Jesus (a separate entity, and yet ‘one’ with God the Father) would take on the appearance of God. The body of Christ served as a conduit through which God the Father could experience the suffering and joys of mortal beings.

Chris, you obviously fail to understand the true ‘accepted’ nature of God….and I say this as an atheist. Jesus did not appear in the Old Testament, and I go further, he fulfilled no Old Testament Prophesies.

A few Christians, especially Evangelicals, claim that Jesus accomplished over 300 hundred Old Testament prophecies. This is absurd. Not one so-called ‘prophecy’ in the Old Testament was ever accomplished by Jesus, not one.

Those Christians who believe in the divine inspiration of both the Old Testament and New Testament claim that this is unassailable proof that Jesus was Israel's Messiah. In my opinion, they're dreaming and so were the gospel authors who made up these prophecy fulfilments. Simply put, they are distorting the Old Testament context in order to fit Jesus into these so-called ‘prophecies’.

Christians, who are forever accusing Sceptics of not respecting the biblical context, are guilty of doing exactly that. Many Christians rip whole contexts apart in order to fit Jesus in these so-called ‘prophecies’. All of the gospel authors, including the author of Acts, twist the Old Testament scriptures in order to make it look as though Jesus had accomplished Old Testament prophecies, and lying is not beyond them.

Here are the words of the great Robert Green Ingersoll, who spent a good deal of time exposing the lies found in the Bible -

"There is no prophecy in the OT foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one word in the OT referring to him in any way, not one word. The only way to prove this is to take your Bible and wherever you find these words: 'That it might be fulfilled' and 'which was spoken' turn to the OT and find what was written, and you will see that it had not the slightest possible reference to the thing recounted in the NT, not the slightest."

And another thing, the Trinity Doctrine that you appear to subscribe to Chris, is another thing built on very shaky foundations…..[b]trinity isn’t even a biblical term….the word does not appear within the Bible.

Even the vaguest references to the Trinity in the Bible have been found to be spurious….thus –

I John 5:7-8, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

The italicised portion of the above text was added to the New Testament probably as late as the 8th century.

The fact is Chris, the Doctrine of the Trinity came about as a convenient excuse for Christians to show there is only one God despite the appearance of Jesus who claimed to be the One with God, something that the Jewish faith has always rejected.

I don’t see a rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity as being a rejection of the divinity of Christ. The fact is, if the idea of the Trinity was wisely dropped, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged

And finally Chris, to bring the conversation down to your level, remember that limp excuse for a movie STAR TREK V: THE FINAL FRONTIER? Judging by your obvious gullibility, it follows that you are a Star Trek fan….so, I’m sure you remember that STV was all about an encounter with God. Okay, so this God turned out to be a phoney, but the point is that this fake God was clever enough to take on the appearance that to most people represented God – old, wise, grey haired, bearded, distinguished features, berobed, a bit like Charlton Heston, not particularly Jewish, and with a commanding Donald Sinden-type voice similar to Cecil B DeMille’s ‘voice of God’ in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS.

DANIEL2: As ALWAYS with you, every point in your argument has a counter-argument that is just as easily "proven." Things aren't as cut-and-dry as you'd like to pretend. Maybe Chris wants to slap you down this time, but I'm sick of it.

Your comments amount to no more than the usual obfuscation, that I am afraid is typical of gullible, unquestioning and easily-led individuals such as yourself.

You said - "As ALWAYS with you, every point in your argument has a counter-argument that is just as easily "proven.""

Then do so....otherwise save your unsubstantiated claims for your lemming-like brethren.

So all I have to say in the matter is: May God bless you both. At least you'll kick this thread way past 2,000.

"All proofs will inevitably lead to propositions which have no proof! All things are known because WE WANT TO BELIEVE THEM."

Mr. Dunham is right, Daniel2. I don't have time or the inclination to go through your points one by one. The ultimate end would be meaningless. I would believe my evidence and you would believe yours. Why, then, should I continue? My battle has already been won. I don't know what YOU'RE looking for.

BRITONS WITH BALLS – part IX

George Washington

Born Feb 22 1732 Westmoreland County, Virginia, British North America
Died Dec 14 1799 Mount Vernon, USA

Perhaps the greatest English-American of them all, George Washington became the first president of the United States of America, and maintained his loyalty to the British Crown for as long as was humanly possible.

Washington’s lineage bears some distinction with Henry VIII of England giving the Washington’s lands and property during the 16th century, and George Washington’s English ancestors held various offices from Elizabethan times. But family fortunes fell with the English Civil War, and John Washington, grandfather of Augustine (George’s father), migrated in 1657 to Virginia. The ancestral home at Sulgrave, Northamptonshire, England, is maintained as a Washington memorial.

Traditions of John Washington's feats as Indian fighter and Lawrence Washington's talk of service days helped imbue George with military ambition within the British Army. Just after Lawrence's death, Lieut. Gov. Robert Dinwiddie appointed George adjutant for the southern district of Virginia at £100 a year (November 1752). The next year he became adjutant of the Northern Neck and Eastern Shore. Then in 1753 Dinwiddie found it necessary to warn the French to desist from their encroachments on Ohio Valley lands claimed by the British crown; and after sending one messenger who failed to reach the goal, he determined to dispatch Washington.

On the day he received his orders, October 31, 1753, Washington set out for the French posts. His party consisted of a Dutchman to serve as interpreter, the expert scout Christopher Gist as guide, and four others, two of them experienced traders with the Indians. Theoretically, Great Britain and France were at peace; but actually war impended, and Dinwiddie's message was an ultimatum: the French must get out or they would be put out by his Britannic Majesty’s forces.

The journey proved rough, perilous, and futile. Washington's party left what is now Cumberland, Maryland, in the middle of November and despite wintry weather and wilderness impediments reached Fort-Le Boeuf, at what is now Waterford, Pennsylvania, 20 miles south of Lake Erie, without delay. The French commander was courteous but adamant. As Washington reported, his officers "told me, that it was their absolute Design to take possession of the Ohio, and by God they would do it”. Eager to carry this alarming news back, Washington pushed off hurriedly with Gist. He was lucky to get back alive. An Indian fired at them at 15 paces but missed; when they crossed the Allegheny River on a raft, Washington was jerked into the ice-filled stream but saved himself by catching one of the timbers.

That night he almost froze in his wet clothing. He reached Williamsburg on January 16, 1754, where he hastily penned a record of the journey. Dinwiddie, who was labouring to convince the British crown of the seriousness of the French threat, had it printed; and when he sent it to London, it was reprinted in three different forms.

The enterprising British governor forthwith planned an expedition to hold the Ohio country for the British Empire. He made Joshua Fry colonel of a provincial regiment, appointed Washington lieutenant colonel, and set them to recruiting troops. Two agents of the Ohio Company, which Lawrence Washington and others had formed to develop lands on the upper Potomac and Ohio rivers, had begun building a fort at what later became Pittsburgh. Dinwiddie, ready to launch into his own war, sent Washington with two companies to reinforce this post. In April 1754 the lieutenant colonel set out from Alexandria with about 160 men at his back. He marched to Cumberland only to learn that the French had anticipated the British blow; they had taken possession of the fort of the Ohio Company and had renamed it Fort-Duquesne. Happily, the Indians of the area offered support to the British. Washington therefore struggled cautiously forward to within about 40 miles of the French position and erected his own post at Great Meadows, near what is now Confluence, Pennsylvania. With this as base, he made a surprise attack (May 28, 1754) upon an advance detachment of 30 French, killing the commander, Coulon de Jumonville, and nine others and making the rest prisoners. The fourth French and Indian War had begun.

Washington at once received promotion to a full colonelcy and was reinforced, commanding a considerable body of British-American troops, with Indian auxiliaries. But his attack soon brought the whole French force down upon him. They drove his 350 men into the Great Meadows fort (Ft. Necessity) on July 3, besieged it with 700 men, and, after an all-day fight, compelled him to surrender. The construction of the fort had been a blunder, for it lay in a waterlogged creek bottom, was commanded on three sides by forested elevations approaching it closely, and was too far from Washington's supports. The French agreed to let the disarmed British colonials march back to Virginia with the honours of war, but they compelled Washington to promise that Virginia would not build another fort on the Ohio for a year and to sign a paper acknowledging responsibility for "l'assassinat" of de Jumonville, a word which Washington later explained he did not rightly understand. He returned to Virginia, chagrined but proud, to receive the thanks of the House of Burgesses, and to find that his name had been mentioned in the London gazettes. His remark in a letter to his brother that "I have heard the bullets whistle; and believe me, there is something charming in the sound" was commented on humorously by Horace Walpole and sarcastically by King George II of England.

The arrival of Gen. Edward Braddock and his army in Virginia in February 1755, as part of the triple plan of campaign that called for his advance on Fort-Duquesne, Gov. William Shirley's capture of Niagara, and Sir William Johnson's capture of Crown Point, brought Washington new opportunities and responsibilities. He had resigned his commission in October 1754 in resentment of the slighting treatment and underpayment of colonial officers and particularly because of an untactful order of the British war office that provincial officers of whatever rank should be subordinate to any officer holding the king's commission. But he ardently desired a part in the war; "my inclinations," he wrote a friend, "are strongly bent to arms." When Braddock showed appreciation of his merits and invited him to join the expedition as personal aide-de-camp, with the courtesy title of colonel, he therefore accepted. His self-reliance, decision, and masterful traits soon became apparent.

At table he had frequent disputes with Braddock, who when contractors failed to deliver their supplies attacked the colonials as supine and dishonest while Washington defended them warmly. His freedom of utterance is proof of Braddock's esteem. Braddock accepted from him the unwise advice that he divide his army, leaving half of it to come up with the slow wagons and cattle train and taking the other half forward against Fort-Duquesne at a rapid pace. Washington was ill with fever during June but joined the advance guard in a covered wagon on July 8, begged to lead the march on Fort-Duquesne with his British-Virginians and the Indian allies, and was by Braddock's side when on July 9 the army was ambushed and bloodily defeated.

In this defeat Washington displayed the combination of coolness and determination, the alliance of unconquerable energy with complete poise, that was the secret of so many of his successes. So ill that he had to use a pillow instead of a saddle and that Braddock ordered his body servant to keep special watch over him, he was everywhere at once. At first he followed Braddock as the general bravely tried to rally his men to push either forward or backward, the wisest course the circumstances permitted. Then he rode back to bring up the Virginians from the rear and rallied them with effect on the flank. To him was largely due the escape of the force. His exposure of his person was as reckless as Braddock's, who was fatally wounded on his fifth horse; Washington had two horses shot under him and his clothes cut by four bullets without being hurt. He was at Braddock's deathbed, helped bring the troops back, and was repaid by being appointed, in August 1755, while still only 23 years old, commander of all the Virginia troops. But no part of his later service was conspicuous. Finding that a Maryland captain who held a royal commission would not obey him, he rode north in February 1756 to Boston to have the question settled by the British commander in chief in America, Governor Shirley, and, bearing a letter from Dinwiddie, had no difficulty in carrying his point. On his return he plunged into a multitude of vexations. He had to protect a weak, thinly settled frontier nearly 400 miles in length with only some 700 ill-disciplined colonial troops; to cope with a legislature unwilling to support him; to meet attacks on the drunkenness and inefficiency of the soldiers; and to endure constant wilderness hardships. It is not strange that in 1757 his health failed and in the closing weeks of that year he was so ill of a "bloody flux" that his physician ordered him home to Mount Vernon.

In the spring of 1758 he recovered sufficiently to return to duty as colonel in command of all Virginia troops. As part of the grand sweep of several British armies organized by Pitt, Gen. John Forbes led a new advance upon Fort-Duquesne. This time Forbes resolved not to use Braddock's road but to cut a new one west from Raystown, Pennsylvania. Washington disapproved of the route but played an important part in the movement. Late in the autumn the French evacuated and burned Fort-Duquesne, and Forbes reared Ft. Pitt on the site. Washington, who had just been elected to the House of Burgesses, was able to resign with the honorary rank of brigadier general.

But though his officers expressed regret at the "loss of such an excellent Commander, such a sincere Friend, and so affable a Companion," he quit the service with a sense of frustration. He had thought the war excessively slow. The Virginia legislature had been niggardly in voting money; the Virginia recruits had come forward reluctantly and had proved of poor quality--he had hanged a few deserters and flogged others heavily. Virginia gave him less pay than other colonies offered their troops. Desiring a regular commission such as his half brother Lawrence had held, he applied in vain to the British commander in North America, Lord Loudoun, to make good a promise that Braddock had given him. Ambitious for both rank and honour, he showed a somewhat strident vigour in asserting his desires and in complaining when they were denied. He returned to Mount Vernon somewhat disillusioned, thus the seeds of doubt were sown.

In no light does Washington appear more characteristically than as one of the richest, largest, and most industrious of Virginia planters. For six days a week he rose early and worked hard; on Sundays he irregularly attended Pohick Church (16 times in 1760), entertained company, wrote letters, made purchases and sales, and sometimes went fox hunting. In these years he took snuff and smoked a pipe; throughout life he liked Madeira wine and punch. Though wheat and tobacco were his staples, he practiced crop rotation on a three-year or five-year plan. He had his own waterpowered flour mill, blacksmith shop, brick and charcoal kilns, carpenters, and masons. His fishery supplied shad, bass, herring, and other catches, salted as food for the Negroes. Coopers, weavers, and his own shoemaker turned out barrels; cotton, linen, and woollen goods; and brogans for all needs. In short, his estates, in accordance with his orders to overseers to "buy nothing you can make yourselves," were largely self-sufficient communities. But he did send large orders to England for farm implements, tools, paint, fine textiles, hardware, and agricultural books.

He experimented in breeding cattle; acquired at least one buffalo, with the hope of proving its utility as a meat animal; and kept stallions at stud. He also took pride in a peach and apple orchard. His care of slaves was exemplary. He carefully clothed and fed them, engaged a doctor for them by the year, refused to sell them - "I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species" - and administered correction mildly. They showed so much attachment that few ran away.

In the social life of the tidewater region he meanwhile played a prominent role. The members of the council and House of Burgesses, a roster of influential Virginians, were all friends. He visited the Byrds of Westover, the Lees of Stratford, the Carters of Shirley and Sabine Hall, and the Lewises of Warner Hall; Mount Vernon often was busy with guests in return. He liked house parties and afternoon tea on the Mount Vernon porch; he was fond of picnics, barbecues, and clambakes; and throughout life he enjoyed dancing, frequently going to Alexandria for balls. Cards were a steady diversion, and his accounts record sums lost at them, the largest reaching nearly £ 10. In bad weather his diary sometimes states, "at home all day, over cards." Billiards was a rival amusement. Not only the theatre, when available, but concerts, cockfights, the circus, puppet shows, and exhibitions of animals received his patronage.

He insisted on the best clothes--coats, laced waistcoats, hats, coloured silk hose--bought in London. The Virginia of the Randolphs, Corbins, Harrisons, Tylers, Nicholases, and other prominent families had an aristocratic quality, and Washington liked to do things in a large way. It has been computed that in the seven years prior to 1775, Mount Vernon had 2,000 guests, most of whom stayed to dinner if not overnight.

Washington's contented life was interrupted by the rising storm in British imperial affairs. The British ministry, facing a heavy postwar debt, high home taxes, and continued military costs in America, decided in 1764 to obtain revenue from the colonies. Up to that time, Washington, though regarded by associates, in Col. John L. Peyton's words, as "a young man of an extraordinary and exalted character," had shown no signs of personal greatness and few signs of interest in state affairs. The Proclamation of 1763 interdicting settlement beyond the Alleghenies irked him, for he was interested in the Ohio Company, the Mississippi Company, and other speculative western ventures. He nevertheless played a silent part in the House of Burgesses and was a thoroughly loyal subject.

But he was present when Patrick Henry introduced his resolutions against the Stamp Act in May 1765 and shortly thereafter gave token of his adherence to the cause of the colonial Whigs against the Tory ministries of England. The next spring, April 4, 1769, he sent George Mason the Philadelphia nonimportation resolutions with a letter declaring that it was necessary to resist the strokes of "our lordly masters" in England; that courteous remonstrances to Parliament having failed, he wholly endorsed the resort to commercial warfare; and that as a last resort no man should scruple to use arms in defence of liberty. When, the following May, the royal governor dissolved the House of Burgesses, he shared in the gathering at the Raleigh tavern that drew up nonimportation resolutions, and he went further than most of his neighbours in adhering to them. At that time and later he believed with most Americans that peace need not be broken.

Late in 1770 he paid a land-hunting visit to Ft. Pitt, where George Croghan was maturing his plans for the proposed 14th British colony of Vandalia. Washington directed his agent to locate and survey 10,000 acres adjoining the Vandalia tract, and at one time he wished to share in certain of Croghan's schemes. But the Boston Tea Party of December 1773 and the bursting at about the same time of the Vandalia bubble turned his eyes back to the East and the threatening state of relations with the mother country. He was not a member of the Virginia committee of correspondence formed in 1773 to communicate with other colonies, but when the Virginia legislators, meeting irregularly again at the Raleigh tavern in May 1774, called for a Continental Congress, he was present and signed the resolutions. Moreover, he was a leading member of the first provincial convention or revolutionary legislature late that summer, and to that body he made a speech that was much praised for its pithy eloquence, declaring that "I will raise one thousand men, subsist them at my own expense, and march myself at their head for the relief of Boston."

His letters of the period show that while still utterly opposed to the idea of independence, he was determined never to submit "to the loss of those valuable rights and privileges of an Englishman". If the ministry pushed matters to an extremity, he wrote, "more blood will be spilled on this occasion than ever before in American history." Though he served on none of the committees, he was a useful member, his advice being sought on military matters and weight being attached to his advocacy of a nonexportation as well as nonimportation agreement. He also helped to secure approval of the "Suffolk Resolves," which looked toward armed resistance as a last resort and which did much to harden the king's heart against America.

Returning to Virginia in November, he took command of the volunteer companies drilling there and served as chairman of the committee of safety in Fairfax County. The unanimity with which the Virginia troops turned to him, though the province contained many experienced officers and Col. William Byrd of Westover had succeeded Washington as commander in chief, was a tribute to his reputation and personality; it was understood that Virginia expected him to be its general. At the March 1775 session of the legislature he was elected to the second Continental Congress and again set out for Philadelphia. Throughout the American War of Independence Washington distinguished himself against the British Army.

Anxious about post-war political anarchy, he encouraged the calling of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and supported the resultant Constitution. He was elected unanimously to the presidency, and again for a second term in 1792. Although he tried to keep his office above politics, he became identified with Federalist policies; and his suppression of the Whisky Rebellion, his refusal to support Revolutionary France, and his approval of Jay's Treaty provoked attacks from Jeffersonian Republicans. His farewell address deplored factionalism and called for American neutrality in foreign affairs.

A brilliant Englishman who became the father of a nation.

You said – ”What Wedge failed to mention is that you are, quite frankly, stubborn and close-minded.”

Actually John, what Wedge has failed to provide is corroborated evidence of God’s existence, and at present, based on the arguments put forward by him and others, I would sooner accept the existence of alien abductions, ghostly apparitions, yetis, the Easter Bunny and backyard pixies than a ‘divine being’.

At least Chris Kinsinger has taken the trouble to explain his beliefs, and I respect and appreciate that, whereas Wedge’s attitude is one of, ‘…God exists, because I say so’.

I don’t think this discussion is necessarily about who’s right and who’s wrong, it’s more a case of learning and attempting to understand the other person’s point of view. Having said that, I believe the onus is on those who do believe in God to prove his existence, because, at present, all of the existing evidence points to God’s existence being purely the invention of mankind. Additionally, the onus is on believers to prove their case as they are the one’s who have historically pushed religion down the throats of the gullible, whereas atheists, like myself, are not seeking to make everyone else atheists.

I would love there to be a good God. I would rejoice at his existence. But I cannot accept something as fact, when there is no tangible evidence to support its existence. It’s like believing in extra-terrestrial visitations, simply because that’s what you want to believe.

You then said – ”You will take anything and use it to support your own opinions….”

Well yes. The thing is there is so much material and evidence that undermines the possibility that a ‘divine being’ exists. The only evidence that you, Chris and Wedge have provided of God’s existence is anecdotal and uncorroborated.

The crux of the matter is John, if I were to accept the existence of God, I would not necessarily worship him anyway, for the world around us is a cruel and harsh place. Okay, to you and me, living in affluence and comfort in the Western World, with warm homes, full stomachs and moderate government, the world around us is very cosy….but for the vast majority of human beings (and animals) life is a constant struggle for survival against the elements, starvation, disease and oppression. No, I could not worship a God that has masterminded such evil as this. You see John, it is mankind himself who has triumphed over the evil forces of nature….if I were to believe in God, I would see mankind as striving to overcome the evils that he has manifested in the known universe.

You said – ”Therefor, refuting your arguments is pointless.”

But most of my arguments are based on facts, on documented incidents and accounts, on scientific proof, and are therefor irrefutable….but yours are not. Why not address the specific evidence that I provide, instead of dismissing what I say with vague generalizations. I have provided compelling proof of evolution, of the way the bible has been fabricated and, also why Charlton Heston would make a most suitable God in any Roswell-esque audio/visual fabrication that Chris may wish to provide in an effort to persuade me of God’s existence – and while he’s about it, he could also include pictures of a hubcap hanging from a tree as evidence of ET, a pixie stool as evidence of his backyard fairies, and a clump of goats-fleece as evidence of Santa Claus.

You said – ”You will merely counter again, and it goes back and forth forever, because neither side is willing to accept anything the other says….”

Well, that’s the nature of discussion. That’s how people learn. The difference between you an me is, I am not afraid to be proven wrong. You and Wedge are so insecure in your faith that you cannot bear to have it questioned. Again, Chris has proven the strength of his faith in that he continues to involve himself in the discussion.

You said – ”I happen to know God exists, and I've had conversations with Him….”

That’s great, I’m very pleased for you. I could say I’ve had conversations with Harvey or the Marshmallow Man, but what does that prove? (apart from the fact that I may be delusional or insane).

You said – ”Your "proof" is likewise ludicrous, consisting of your own interpretations and unsubstantiated claims….”

What ‘unsubstantiated claims’?….You will have to be more specific, because most of the evidence I have provided is thoroughly substantiated.

You said – ”So even arguing with you is a waste of time.”

That’s what you would like to believe. I’m not arguing with anyone, I am merely engaging in reasonable discussion.

You said – ”I'm surprised Chris has the stamina to keep at you, despite your obvious refusal to accept anything he says.”

I accept many of the things Chris says, including the fact that he has faith in God. However, this is not good enough reason for me to accept the existence of God.

You said – ”I don't have time or the inclination to go through your points one by one….”

Then why say anything? I have made the effort to back-up my opinions with reason and, where possible, with evidence….you have merely responded by stating that my opinions can be disproved, without bothering to explain how. Your Frank Herbert quote is an interesting concept, but you don’t even explain how you interpret what he says.

You said – ”The ultimate end would be meaningless. I would believe my evidence and you would believe yours. Why, then, should I continue?”

Well, with such a defeatist and negative attitude as yours, why bother talking about anything? Why even bother to get out of bed in the morning?

You said – ”My battle has already been won….”

And that is just the attitude that has led to religious intolerance throughout the world and to the damaging interference of Christian Missionaries in the religious affairs of many of the world’s disparate cultures. Your attitude is intransigently, ”I’m right, and that’s all that matters.”

You said – ”I don't know what YOU'RE looking for.”

I am looking to learn about the attitudes and opinions of others, whilst also enriching my own knowledge of things.

You said – ”Your nit-picking at Chris typifies your anal-retentive mean-spiritedness”

If you cared to re-examine the discussion between myself and Chris, you will find that he is as guilty as I of ‘nit-picking’, but, you won’t find me complaining about it, so why should you?

You said – ”In his Charlton Heston comment, he clearly meant that as an actor Heston captured the essence of a man torn and frustrated between God and Man, but he did NOT portray an ethnic Jew with any degree of accuracy.”

BRITONS WITH BALLS – part X

Daniel Seamus Cunningham

Born March 7, 1932 Weston-super-Mare, Somerset, England
Died – TBA

Leading British critic of the American film composer Jerry Goldsmith, the filmmaker Oliver Stone and the world-renowned Australian art critic Robert Hughes.

A garbage collector by trade, Cunningham spent his early adult life in ‘50s Grimsby at which time he became a great friend of the legendary wit and bully-boy Buck Jefferson. During the early ‘90s, following the increasing incidence of trashcans overflowing with discarded Goldsmith cds, Cunningham was instrumental in forging links between the Consolidated Refuse Absorption Professionals (CRAP) and The Goldsmith Society (also CRAP). A meeting of aggrieved townsfolk, CRAP representatives and Goldsmith Society members took place at Grimsby Town Hall on the night of December 8 1992, and after initial scuffles amongst the gathering, speaker Cunningham thrilled the audience with his CRAP/Goldsmith Society bonding speech, “…..your man produces the crap, and we’ll dispose of it!” This rallying cry brought the hall to its feet, and subsequent relations between CRAP and the Goldsmith Society have been on a sure footing. Cunningham’s ground-breaking garbage-collection theories are collectively known as “The Dustman’s Charter”, and extend even beyond solutions for the safe disposal of Goldsmith cds.

Being of mixed English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh extraction (with just a dash of Viking), Cunningham is known amongst friends and acquaintances as “The Voice of Britain”.

Cunningham is also a keen amateur historian whose mission in life is to expose historical inaccuracies in cinema (eg. Virtually every ‘Cowboy’ film ever made) and also to enlighten society as a whole on the global historical importance of the British Empire.

”…..I can only hope my beloved Ireland will one day rejoin the British Commonwealth…..”

”…..Zimmer (and Horner too) is more than just a film composer……he is a cultural ambassador, a pioneer of musical development, a leader of film composers, an expert exponent of CMS..…and a profound influence on the continued development and sophistication of civilization itself….”

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
[blah blah blah] No, I could not worship a God that has masterminded such evil as this. [etc., etc.]

---

God didn't mastermind such evil. It is entirely due to the Devil and us flawed human beings. God hates "such evil" and has even humbled Himself to become one of us and then died to destroy that evil.

quote:

---

But most of my arguments are based on facts, on documented incidents and accounts, on scientific proof, and are therefor irrefutable.

---

Saying they are doesn't make it so. In fact, they are not. Practically everything you put forth was subjective.

quote:

---

Why not address the specific evidence that I provide, instead of dismissing what I say with vague generalizations. I have provided compelling proof of evolution, of the way the bible has been fabricated [yadda yadda]

---

If you put forth any specific evidence or compelling proof, I'll be glad to consider it. To date, though, all you've provided are subjective generalizations and no corroborative evidence.

quote:

---

What ‘unsubstantiated claims’?….You will have to be more specific, because most of the evidence I have provided is thoroughly substantiated.

---

Well, all your posts have been unsubstantiated claims. I must have missed the part where you provided evidence...

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
You and Wedge are so insecure in your faith that you cannot bear to have it questioned. Again, Chris has proven the strength of his faith in that he continues to involve himself in the discussion.

---

Skipped this in my last reply by accident. Hoo boy, what a statement!
Okay, here goes: Wedge and I are so secure in our faith that your attempts to tear it down are irrelevant. We are even so secure that we don't need to justify ourselves to you via futher discussion.
I would hazard a guess that Chris is not debating with you to proove the strength of his faith, merely because he enjoys it.
As for me, I'm only responding to you because I want to make the thread longer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
Finally Wedge, judging by your closing remarks, I can only assume that you are incapable of responding with compelling counter-arguments, and are simply running away from the issues being discussed here.

---

...and were I to judge (as you did) by these closing remarks, I would say you're an eighth grade bully. Such a childish attitude of "if you don't justify yourself to me, you're a coward" ill befits someone who is "looking to learn about the attitudes and opinions of others, whilst also enriching [your] own knowledge of things."

Thank you for your eloquent defense. Daniel2 is not unlike the dwarves in the barn from The Last Battle by C.S. Lewis (now THERE was a "Briton With Balls!" He was an ATHEIST, Daniel2! A theist who renounced his religion on philosophical grounds, then returned to it for the same reason. I recommend "Surprised by Joy.")

But Daniel2 doesn't seem to want to see it that way, so I'll give him what he wants, just for the benefit of those others who haven't heard it before (he has.)

DANIEL2:

I did NOT say your opinions could be DIS-proven. I said they could not be proven.

POINT OF FACT: In the far-flung past (have you forgotten already?) I spent PAGES describing both my reasoning and, where possible, evidence. And yet we are here still. You have forgotten my reasons and you have dismissed my evidence as fabricated because it is outside your experience. But perhaps I'll reiterate for the benefit of our current viewers.

When I say I have already won my battle, I mean that I have struggled with tough questions and come up with answers which make sense to me.

If you want something to chew on, chew on this -- it relates to the Herbert quote: HOW could God prove Himself to you? IF God existed, what could HE do that would prove HIS existence in your mind?

The answer is: nothing. The Human mind is capable of rejecting and/or explaining away ANYTHING. Spontaneous regeneration of body tissue? How would you know it was real? Not a technology beyond your understanding? How would you know it was not a drug-induced hallucination? Or hypnotic suggestion? How could God prove to you that He was not an illusion? Or a dream? He could not ... because you can always CHOOSE to believe otherwise.

I submit that if Jesus came down to your house and changed water into wine you could find a hundred reasons why it did not conclusively prove that he was God.

But perhaps you don't NEED conclusive proof. Perhaps you just want "compelling evidence." You may argue that water into wine and other such inexplicabilities would or should at least INDICATE or IMPLY the presence of God. WAKE UP! The world is full of contradictions and inexplicabilities, Daniel2. FULL of them! This world does NOT WANT for paradoxes and unsolved mysteries and observable behaviors which science can NOT EXPLAIN! If that would be your proof, I submit that it is THERE FOR THE TAKING!!!

If computers changed to butterflies, rain fell up and people could fly at will, we would revise our science to include it. It would not prove the existence of anything other than that the events took place: all else would be theory.

There is, of course, one way an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient deity could truly prove His existence to you ... he could MAKE you believe. If he was so all-powerful, he could simply CAUSE you to accept Him.

Unfortunately, this would NEGATE FREE WILL and NULLIFY the very PURPOSE OF A GOD-PERFORMED CREATION! A loving God would not want soulless puppets.

Here, then, is my logic, Daniel2: IF THERE IS A GOOD AND LOVING GOD, HE WOULD NOT WALK UP AND PROVE HIS EXISTENCE TO ME. THE BURDEN OF FAITH WOULD BE ON ME.

And guess what? As it turns out, the burden of faith IS on me. And when I HAVE faith, lo and behold: God's existence IS revealed to me. But FAITH is the necessary prerequisite.

So: my conclusion is that if there IS NOT a God, there will be no proof. If there IS a God, the only proof to be found will be found INSIDE of pre-existing belief. Hence: "My FAITH in God is the PROOF of God" as someone here said not long ago. And the ONLY proof you will or can find. (Unlike aliens or elves, I might add, whose only proof would necessarily lie within the context of unbelieving humans.)

If you truly, TRULY would love for there to be a good God, then STOP WHINING AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! You want a miracle first? MIRACLE: An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature. Explain infinity, Daniel2. Succeed where billions of others have failed. You want another one? There are thousands more. There's your miracle, Daniel: existence itself. The supreme contradiction; the ultimate unexplainable; the foundation of ALL miracles. You want it? TAKE it!

JUST TAKE IT!

BRITONS WITH BALLS – part XI

George Stephenson

Born 1781, Northumberland, England
Died 1848, Derbyshire, England

English inventor of the first steam locomotive and the alarm clock.

The Industrial Revolution began in England and George Stephenson was a mighty force within it. George was the son of a colliery fireman, and became familiar with the steam-engines used in mines for pumping and haulage. With this experience, he began to manufacture stationary steam-engines before turning to steam traction. In 1814 he built his first colliery steam locomotive, and in 1825 constructed the world’s first public railway between Stockton and Darlington, followed by the Manchester-Liverpool line in 1830. At his Newcastle upon Tyne works, he and his son Robert built the Rocket (1829) and many of the next generation of railway locomotives. In 1815 he invented the miner's safety lamp. George’s son, Robert Stephenson, worked as a mechanical engineer in his father's locomotive works at Newcastle until 1824, when he spent three years superintending mines in Colombia. He then returned to Newcastle and collaborated with his father in many railway ventures. He also became famous as a bridge builder, constructing among others the Menai tubular-girder bridge in the UK, which was opened in 1850, and the Victoria Bridge over the St Lawrence River in Canada (1859).

Of course, George Stephenson was very much a part of the Industrial Revolution that had begun in England during the 18th century. The Industrial Revolution was the change in the organization of manufacturing industry which transformed Britain from the 18th century, then other countries, from rural to urban economies. The process began in England as a result of improved agricultural techniques, which freed workers from the land and made it possible to provide food for a large non-agricultural population. A combination of economic, political, and social factors, including internal peace, the success of the British Empire, the availability of coal and iron ore, the availability of capital, and the development of steam power, and later the internal-combustion engine and electricity, led to the construction of factories, which were built for the mass production of manufactured goods.

A new organization of work known as the factory system increased the division and specialization of labour. The textile industry was the prime example of industrialization and created a demand for machines, and for tools for their manufacture, which stimulated further mechanization. Improved transport became necessary and was provided by the expansion of the canal system and the subsequent development of railways and roads. The skills acquired during this period were exported to other countries and this helped to make Britain the richest and most powerful nation in the world by the middle of the 19th century. Simultaneously the process of industrialization radically changed the face of British society, leading to the growth of large industrial cities, particularly in the Midlands, the North, Scotland, and South Wales. Similar changes followed in other European countries, in the USA, and in Japan during the 19th century, while in the 20th century Eastern Europe, China, India, and South-East Asia have undergone a similar industrialization process. The modern mechanized world started in Britain.

Wow! If that's the BIG question, please permit me to provide everyone with the BIGanswer: I thought better of a few silly comments, and made the mistake of thinking that I had removed them before they were seen. Saying ridiculous things from time to time is certainly not beyond my abilities, and when I have done so, I usually take them back, if possible.

I've come to the conclusion that it isn't possible for ME, or John, or Wedge, or any mere human to prove God's existence to you, Daniel2. I also know that God Himself loves you a great deal, and desires to have a love relationship with you.

I have long since become well convinced of, and totally established in the tremendous power of prayer. I have documented literally thousands of instances of directly answered prayers during my lifetime. God answers prayer! Therefore, I am setting myself to pray directly for you Daniel Cunningham. I am asking God to prove His existence to you, something which is impossible for man to do.

Let's see what happens. Developing...

One of the many proofs of God's existence is the sum of spiritual laws which can only be found in His Word. These laws work every single time they are set in motion by believers. One example is the Law of Reciprocity, taught by Jesus in Luke 6:38. "Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, men will give unto your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you." This law is put into effect by giving of yourself; giving of your time and energies, your goods or your finances, to those in need. God repays such giving with interest due!
Another example that is not widely taught, and even highly misunderstood by the church itself is Romans 8:11. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." This law, when properly appropriated, will cause your physical body to be healed from ANY disease, sickness or infirmity, and to resist ANY disease germ or virus that attacks it. This is merely one of the areas where the Word of God, when put into action, alters physical reality every time.
These are just two of the many evidences of God that are at work in my life daily.
Another one is the direct guidance of the Holy Spirit. In John 16:13, Jesus said, "However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come."
Even the majority of Christian believers on the earth have rejected the infilling of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in other tongues, which is a tragedy. Countless times the Holy Spirit has directed me away from misfortune, injury, perhaps even death.
These are all matters of FACT in my life - SUPERnatural healing, SUPERnatural guidance and direction, SUPERnatural wisdom and ability...all flow from El Elyon, the God Most High, who puts His SUPER on top of my "natural" every single day.

BRITONS WITH BALLS – part XII

William Wilberforce

Born 1759, Hull, Yorkshire, England
Died 1833, London, England

English politician and philanthropist who from 1787 was prominent in the struggle to abolish the slave trade and then to abolish slavery itself within the British Empire. Indeed, the Slave Trade was abolished within the British Empire in 1807 (sixty years before the United States of America), and Britain was active in preventing American slave trading activities in British West Africa.

Wilberforce's abolitionism was derived in part from evangelical Christianity, to which he was converted in 1784-85. In 1787 he helped to found a society for the "reformation of manners" called the Proclamation Society (to suppress the publication of obscenity) and the Anti-Slavery Society. He and his associates, Thomas Clarkson, Granville Sharp, Henry Thornton, Charles Grant, Edward James Eliot, Zachary Macaulay, and James Stephen, were first called the Saints and afterward (from 1797) the Clapham Sect, of which Wilberforce was the acknowledged leader.

In the House of Commons, Wilberforce was an eloquent and indefatigable sponsor of antislavery legislation. He achieved success on March 25, 1807, when a bill to abolish the slave trade in the British Empire became law.

”Never, never will we desist till we ... extinguish every trace of this bloody traffic, of which our posterity, looking back to the history of these enlightened times will scarce believe that it has been suffered to exist so long a disgrace and dishonor to this country."