I think the best thing about speculative fiction, particularly fantasy, is that it can show us ourselves in ways that we're not used to looking. It's a mirror, but a warped and twisted mirror that often times allows us to see the things an ordinary mirror cannot.

Anyone who tells me "it's not literature," or arches a brow at me about it, can just wander off as far as I'm concerned. Speculative fiction can go places no other form of literature can manage.

What's a better way to explore the ultimate nature of humanity? A story about a salesman whose life is falling apart, or a story about a monster who has lost his humanity and wants to reclaim it? I know which option I choose.

Isaac. "Liberal" ABC, NBC, and CBS?

That's rich. They were along for the ride as a cheering section on the war. I refuse to watch ANY of them. Bunch of sensationalistic, jingoistic crap. Damn, you folks are astoundingly ignorant, aren't you?

Let me tell you a secret. What you don't know, CAN hurt you.

Violating U.N. resolutions means the U.N. gets to decide whether to act militarily. Not the U.S. But Dubya was bound and determined to do so, so what happened? An act of idiocy.

And the WMDs? Not present.

Fates alive, man, are you really that forgetful? Don't you remember what they told us it was all about in the first place? WMDs. The non-existent WMDs. It was the U.S. who chased the inspectors out at the end, after Hans Blixer said "there aren't any."

Where are the WMDs, Isaac?

And hindsight? Bloody hell, Isaac. We said all this BEFORE hand. Hindsight. Jeez.
Not our fault none of you listened to us when it might have made a difference. Our voices were drowned out by the so-called "liberal" (more rightly called sensationalist and corporate) media's cheerleading efforts.

Devin: Keep in mind that a biography of George Bush, quoting his own words, said that he wanted to invade Iraq before he EVER got into office.

9/11 was a convenient excuse. Too convenient, by some people's lights. Me, I'm as skeptical about that as anything else. But I remember my second thought after watching the plane crash into the tower (the first being, "Holy Crap"). That thought? "Well, isn't THIS convenient?"

Throughout all this I've seen nearly all my guesses turn out to be cold, hard fact. I could have foretold the Patriot Act within a hour of the crash, though I wasn't sure of the specifics. I KNEW we'd be in a war...interestingly enough, the first war was with the Taliban, to which we'd just given billions of dollars to help with the War On Drugs (funny, that), but as soon as he set his sites on Iraq I knew that nothing would stop them. Not truth, justice, or the American Way (whatever the hell that is these days). I watched the glorious "March on Baghdad" on TV with a sick feeling in my stomach. The beat of the war drum and sizzling graphics, it looked like a goddamn television program.

It was about then I gave up on the corporate media. Rather than asking ANYONE if this was a good idea (Which it wasn't) they went along with all their strutting madness and sank us into yet another war.

We hadn't, and haven't yet, won the war in Afghanistan. And the likelihood of pulling anything salvagable out of Iraq is dwindling by the moment.

Any of these chickenhawks ever stop to wonder WHY Poppy Bush didn't invade after Desert Storm? Because he knew it would have been a monumentally STUPID idea.

Well, they may hate us because we helped destroy their country. The Iraqis, I mean. The others may hate us because we stick our big fat noses into stuff that isn't any of our business all the time, propping up tyrannical regimes as long as they serve our interests, then either embargo them or attack them directly. We claim to "spread democracy" yet don't respect any democratic activity unless it corresponds with what WE believe democracy should be and what its results should be.

Pretty much why the rest of the world doesn't like us all that much anymore either. We've fallen a long way from the great nation that helped protect the world during WWII.

As for the rest: There is no proof. It's all conjecture based on second-hand "revelation" and therefore worthless in itself. "Faith" will never take the place of knowledge.

I am happy you find comfort in your faith. I am not one who could ever believe something without either personal experience or empirical evidence.

Issac: The only evidence that an "invisible" universe exists at all is completely rooted in the individual, which brings us around to the whole revelation thing again. Though I might agree that something may exist beyond that which we see, I disagree that the Bible is the end-all explanation of the unseen. Or any kind of explanation at all, really.

We are still left with using the bible to prove itself, which is an impossibility in itself.

You have to first accept that what they wrote in the bible is factually true. A difficult sell to anyone capable of honestly examining it with no preconceptions of its validity in the first place.

It can say anything, but, again, you are using it to prove itself. And if one considers the lack of consistency surrounding so many subjects on which it's in error, that's pretty damning evidence right there.

The old "what have you got to lose" argument is nonsense. I can choose either to live in fear of something that is most likely nothing but myth, or I can choose to live consistent with my own reason and my ability to determine right from wrong based upon the very perceptions and intelligence ostensibly granted me by the God you worship.

It's a no-brainer.

It's a funny thing about prophesy. After the fact anyone can say anything came to fruition as prophesied and no one's the wiser. Most scholars believe the bible was written several decades after Christ's death. So, with that in mind, what are the chances that the authors (whoever the hell they were--since we have no way of knowing) simply made certain it would seem these so-called prophesies were fulfilled?

I've READ the biblical "prophesies." And, you know, it's obvious to anyone with any wits whatsoever that they're written in such a way that, in hindsight, you could make them out to mean ANYTHING you want. Sorry to say, that's not proof of anything at all to me. Quite the opposite, really. If it were REALLY prophesy, it would say something like, "And the President of the United States took it upon himself to declare war on the leader of Persia, and thus landed his nation in a perpetual war."

Now THAT would be prophesy. All this stuff with dragons and horns and rivers of blood? Poetic balderdash.

As Paine says, the laws of God are all around us. We use reason, and science, in an attempt to understand them. Things cannot fall upward. Things in motion tend to stay in motion. You cannot breed a dog and a fish. Camels do not breathe water.

The Earth orbits the sun, which is a small star on the edge of a vast swirling mass of stars, always in motion, sharing the cosmos with billions and billions of other such bodies. (Interesting that the divinely-inspired bible seems to pass along about as much information regarding this stuff as was known by the desert-dwelling tribesmen, isn't it? Which is to say, not very much).

Creation, if indeed that's what it is, is AWESOME, in the truest sense of the word. Thinking of its vastness boggles the mind. The authors of the bible were entirely ignorant of this vastness, and it shows.

How anyone can take a single book, written by tens, if not hundreds, of unknown people, filled with brutality, bigotry, and improbabilities, and make it into a object of reverence and worship is completely beyond me. I tried to buy it, I really did. I spent hours and hours in bible study of my own volition when I was a child. But over time it became increasingly obvious that I'd never be one of those who actually believed in it. I questioned too much.

You don't question it, just like you don't question Dubya. And that, right there, is the source of all our problems. The problem isn't stupidity, it's willful ignorance. You think it's acceptable to use the bible to prove itself, and it's not.

As Carl Sagan once remarked in one of his novels... Had God really not wanted us to question his existence, or the meaning of his "Word," he would've left us a crucifix in orbit.

Ain't no crucifix up there, Isaac. Just a lot of satellites WE put up there. Yes. Us. Humankind. Capable of doing things that would seem Godlike, or at least magical, to the desert-dwelling tribesman who conceived of the bible.

And it occurs to me that the whole "miracles" argument is a wonderfully convenient cop-out.

Are you sure we're not just an alien lab experiment? Makes as much sense in the long run.

Or maybe Zeus and his family are residing up there on Mt. Olympus, invisible to the mortal eye.

And where IS heaven, anyway? Does everyone really spend all their time their worshipping God? Whatever for? All-powerful, all-knowing, and eternal, and he desires, no, HUNGERS, for the worship of poor, sinful, fallible humanity? In what universe does that even make sense?

And Hell? Seriously. Given intelligence, and the ability to analyze the world around us, we're somehow expected to buy that this collection of myths and legends was somehow inspired by a God we cannot see, for reasons we cannot understand, with interpretations that vary almost as widely as the number of people on the planet? And if we don't believe it we're going to be cast down to suffer FOREVER?

It's like a sick joke. I mean, y'all can't even decide amongst yourselves who's right. Catholics, Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Mormons, Quakers, Mennonites, Anglicans...the list goes on. All claiming to be Christians, though, as you can tell, with wildly different ideas of what the "Word of God" actually says. And that's without even touching upon the original faith, Judaism, or Christianity's "evil" twin, Islam.

If I were to die and find myself at the pearly gates, all I'd have to do is point downward and say "have you listened to those people down there?" and, honestly, what could a wise gate-keeper possibly say? Though I don't believe in the bible, I've done rather well in living by Christ's example. I treat my fellow humans with respect and compassion, violate very few of the Ten Commandments because, well, they're just a good idea, and otherwise conduct myself as a decent human being.

I don't need religion to do that. I just need to understand that it's in my own best interest to have good relations with the people I deal with on a day-to-day basis.

As I say, the quality of our lives has a lot more to do with how we relate to our neighbors than it does with our relationship with a transcendent deity. And it's impossible to argue against that point with any degree of success.



Pray for me all you want. Damn silly way to spend your time, if you ask me.

So, what, this God has self-esteem issues? He's omnipotent and omnipresent, but he gets offended by what HUMANS, mere mortal creations, think of him or say about him?

That's pretty sad.

Either he's perfect and eternal, or he's a chump. You can't have it both ways.

And I still say that second-hand revelation is worthless. There is no more evidence that the bible was divinely inspired than there is for any other book. And, in some respects, considerably less, since other books don't contradict themselves anywhere near as often, or blatantly ignore basic scientific principles. Just from reading, it's obvious the authors knew nothing of the world outside their own region.

Seriously, how do you get multiples of every creature on Earth (it was only two-by-two for the UNCLEAN animals) onto a single boat? Just the bugs alone would fill anything Noah could have built with the tools available to him. And what about the animals of N. America and Australia, anyway? I'm pretty sure he didn't sail around the world saving THEM from the flood. If nothing else, forty days and forty nights wouldn't be enough TIME.

So it's either true or not true. Myth or fact. Smart money says myth.

And who wrote the bible? And which parts? Certainly not the people those parts are attributed to, for the very reasons Paine points out.

And, so, was Jesus literate? Why aren't there any of his own words recorded anywhere? You'd think those apostles would've done everything and anything to preserve something THAT holy. Frankly, I'm not convinced ANY of them were literate, at least until that ass fell off his ass, had a revelation, (man, think about all that POWER), and started the Holy Roman Church.

And, btw, you're mistaking disdain for hate. There really is a difference, you know.

Right, Devin. We can't let them skate the way we let most of the people involved in Watergate, or the Iran/Contra deal, simply walk away from justice. In fact, if you dig deeply enough, you find the same names popping up in ALL of these scandals at some level or another, as well as others equally dastardly.

Clinton chose not to pursue investigations into all that had come before, hoping beyond hope, I suppose, that America needed healing more than it needed justice. And to repay him for his largesse, they went after him like a pack of dogs set on a wounded deer.

I'd LIKE to think his motives were pure, but there's always the consideration that certain things will never come to light because those who have the power to dig most deeply have things that they themselves prefer to remain hidden. Backroom deals and dark secrets that force them to be complicit in even greater crimes.

No matter the cost, these people need to be brought to justice, and their foul ideology needs to be exposed as the pack of lies it is. Voodoo economics, the free market, selective morality, and wedge-issue politics...all need to be drawn out into the light and allowed to wither and burn in the sunshine of truth like a nest of vampires.

Then and ONLY then will America be able to heal.

You think that represents "Justice," Isaac? No wonder you support Bush. Is it justice to put EVERY male in a conquered nation to the sword, as well as all women too old to give over to the soldiers as spoils of war?

Is it justice to send bears to kill children for mocking the baldness of a prophet?

Over two-hundred years ago one of our founding fathers deconstructed the bible and pointed out countless fallacies of logic and morality. The book is "Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine, available in its entirety on-line. Search it out as I did, and read it. If you can consolidate your belief with what he revealed, the more power to you.

Otherwise, one must formulate the opinion that the "morality" of those who believe like you do is AT LEAST as variable as you believe OURS is. What Saddam, or nearly any dictator, did is in no way comparable to the atrocities allegedly committed under God's OWN direction. If you take the bible to be anything more than a book of stories not much different than the tales of the Greek gods, that is.

Katarena: I'm not sure even THAT would do it. They'd probably say he was just "spreading his holy seed as commanded by God."

Isaac

The Old Testament is used to justify a LOT of what conservative Christians believe, while the words of Christ are more or less ignored. What happened to "Judge not," and "He who is without sin" or "Look to the plank in your own eye?"

A "Godly" man wouldn't have taken office with the plan to invade Iraq already in his head, which we know GW did. And don't talk to me about "liberating the Iraqis." If anything, they're less free now. Particularly the women. They're sure less safe.

It is not YOUR job, or the job of our elected representatives, to enforce what they see as God's laws here on Earth. The faith in these men (and women), admittedly flawed, borders on Idolotry...particularly where George Bush is concerned. All he has to do is say is that he "talks to God" and some people line up behind him as if he can do no wrong.

What the hell's up with that? Weren't you people warned about false prophets?

I think all this religiousity is tied up in the whole package. All a leader has to do to get the support of the "conservatives" is to say these certain things "gays are immoral," "we need prayer in public schools," "abortion is murder," and "God talks to me."

You people ever get the feeling you MIGHT be a little gullible? I mean, it's pretty obvious to the rest of us that when GW says "God," he really means "Dick Cheney." A Godly man doesn't send kids into an unnecessary war based on non-existent WMDs, then JOKE about their absence by pretending to look for them in his office. He doesn't say "Bring 'em on," as a challenge to the enemy as if his trooops are meaningless robots.

It strikes me that you folks are willing to excuse almost anything, as long as the right words come out of their mouths. Actions speak louder than words, and so far NONE of these actions have been particularly convincing. If he's channeling "God" it's that bloodthirsty demon from the Old Testament, not the "God" of Jesus Christ.

And, tell me, if you can actually READ the Old Testament, and justify the brutality, violence, and rapine allegedly commanded by that deity, you're walking a much darker path than I can manage.