I found the National Geographic program on the Gospel of

Well James, when you write that it's verse 8 and quote verse 8, I kind of assume you are talking about verse 8 rather than 7. As for 7, I don't know yet if I will look at it or not.

As for the rest of the post, I'll stick with what Paul said.

Write the Mods! You've been flamed! I'll be your witness! No ... wait ...

is true, then why are those two warnings still in the ''tampered'' bible?! Maybe Jehovah is more on top of things than you're willing to believe.

One point I always found faith-strengthening is this:
Many people are interested in Shakespeare, which has its ''canon'' and dissenters-from-canon. All of us would love to come across an original manuscript, or pre-Folio text, that would clear up many puzzles. (Ex.: There are two plays within King Lear; how do we separate them?) No one I know thinks this will happen, but we continue to read and study anyway, just because it's fun. And the questions are not those of 'life and death.'

The bible is many people's main source for 'life and death' information, and new, useful information about it comes to light every year. This happens to be just in time for what Paul and others called the ''last day(s):'' 2 Tim 3:1-5. Is that a coincidence or what??!!

BTW, I think the verse of 1 John you would strike is v. 7: ''For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.''

1Jo 5:8 says, ''And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.''

V.7 is, in fact, the only explicit trinity in the bible. V.8 merely restates that any proper witness to God and his purposes must agree with other such witnesses.

That v.7 is an addition was proved - proved - by two nominal Trinitarians, Isaac Newton and Edward Gibbon. Gibbon's reference to it ignited a long-running Op-ed exchange in the London Times, which was resolved in Gibbon's favor. The proof of that is in any modern bible published by Trinitarians, which omit the verse or relegate it to a footnote. Or you can prove to yourself its spuriousness, as I did, by writing the KJV and NIV versions in parallel columns. The NIV will read logically and sensibly, in spite of ... well, try it yourself.

You ask good questions, just don't get distracted by spurious details. 2 Tim 3:5; 4:3,4.

not need this verse to establish its truth.

wrote many things not parts of our bible. They were, after all, functioning as administrators of the early congregations. Paul states his belief in ''canonicity'' and the usefulness of the bible:

2Ti 3:16, RSV: ''Al scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.''

I've been content for almost 20 years now with just the 66 books of the standard, non-RC canon. Never had a problem that wasn't addressed cogently; only problem has been my ability to follow its lead. I'm told others have the same problem. Rom 7:19

you have refused even to hint at your denomination let alone who you believe on these issues.

I am an inquirer, a searcher, an analyser, I try to form a larger picture where everything fits and is comprehensible. We know my religious upbringing and Dave Konkel's and Doug Pruners, I suspect Evie is RC though I may be wrong. I haven't divined Dr. Bill's.

But you, who are so strident on your certainties, and so certain of everybody else's errors are silent about which denomination and who it is that has influenced you to this IMO rather extreme position.

Your view of Christianity is like that of Procrustes who forced each passer-by to try his bed. If any bits hung over the edges he lopped them off, if one happened to be too short, he stretched you on a rack to fit.

Just tell us the truth about your beliefs, instead of simply ravaging the ideas, questions, and inquiries of those who have a different understanding of the religious spirit. Charity to others is a virtue right up there but slightly below faith, and you might allow yourself the hope that your witnessing your faith rather than merely attacking that of others might be more productive. It would certainly provoke less anger and irritability in those whom you attack quite personally.

Rob

recognize them, it merely reflects your own ignorance of the Christian world. What difference does a specific denomination make? I've said just recently that I'm evangelical. If you don't know what that means, then its your own lack of knowledge that is causing your problem. Evangelicals are quite comfortable with General Conference Baptists, with historical Presbyterians, and several other branches of the faith.

You're excellent at attacking character and spewing insults. However, you become indignant if you are treated that way. You are a blind idealogue. You are not a searcher for truth. Your proclivity lies in attacking and slurring honorable men and women. You rarely even bother to attempt to justify what you say. Should I post links to the kind of descriptions of President Bush that you have written?

The worst part is that you seem incapable of inspecting your own character in the light you attempt to shine on others.

and his cabinet. You find them honorable, I find them self-seeking and corrupt. When attacked personally, I am far too prone to bite back than to reason, it is a personal failing. I like DK and a number of others, some now departed, have been called too many unpleasant things here to even bother creating links, and since you have been the author of some of those personal attacks, like the instance to which this is a reply, you should know them chapter and verse by now. I asked you questions which provoked this reply. I did not think I was attacking you in any way, though I was very unpleasant to you in a previous thread, now locked. You are not the soul of Christian Charity, you are disinclined to turn the other cheek, you are as prone as I to anger and retaliation.

This is the first I've heard of your admitting to being an Evangelical, though that strain runs through your posts. I am still curious as to what particular flavour of evangelical you are, which nationally known preachers, besides your own local preacher you admire, but I understand your reticence.

I will try to refrain from being a pain in the a## to you if you will try to do the same with me. But please understand: while the personal may be political, the political (having no respect for the current administration) is not the personal (it is not aimed at anyone except those in the Administration). Just how delighted and pleasant were you to the Clinton Administration? I don't take that personally, though I think the Starr Inquiry a travesty of political witch-hunting.

As noted before, I am an unreconstructed Democrat, an unapologetic liberal, a very well read historical analyst of the mid 20th century type (not a revisionist) and I seek knowledge and what truth I can derive from that knowledge. Dispute my opinions 'til the cows come home, do not impugn my motives, I have no agenda except Big Tent democracy, to include the largest number as equally as possible, not merely to benefit my friends and former employers and those of my social class. I desire J.S. Mill's Utilitarian dream, the greatest good for the greatest number. Statistics determine that goal. If 1% of the population control 80+% of the wealth in a country, that isn't good for the greatest number. If large numbers live below the "Poverty Line" that's not the fault of the statistic, it's the fault of society, and thus of the government. If 40 million people do not have health insurance or have minimal coverage and tens of millions more have less than optimal coverage, that too is not the "greatest good for the greatest number" when so many other countries have solved that problem, including much reviled France which went from having one of the worst health care systems to having one of the best in about 40 years. The evidence for that is in Orwell's Down and Out In Paris and London, and in the health care statistics published by the European Union, and quoted by virtually every writer on the topic.

Since I am not an Evangelical, and tend to find their beliefs inimical to me, I am certainly not expert enough to decipher which of the many branches you belong to. Yes I lack knowledge of the Evangelical movement, but that is a specialist sort of knowledge that I have chosen not to acquire not least because I have been engaged in my own pursuit of religious knowledge which goes back rather farther than the 17th and 18th Centuries. To use a metaphor, I am more interested in the roots and stalks of the cane of belief, rather than seeing how finely it can eventually be split. I confess that those who divide off from some earlier subdivision of a subdivision of the whole and then claim to be the one truth, and a return to the original stem baffle me. I think you have to go back to first principles and work forward from there.

I thought the analysis of the Canonical Bible as an excellent tool for proselytizing, but not necessarily the entirety of Christ's message made sense. I think that if you examine the history of the Early Church you will find it full of devout men trying to make the best decision for their particular locale and time, but not necessarily the most disinterested of interpreters. They had an agenda, survival and expansion. But what about those things that they cast aside? Was God, or their own view of necessity guiding their hands? The conventional Evangelical answer would be God. How can you be sure? How can you be sure, without examining everything you can get your hands on and allowing the divine spark within you to mull and assess over a period of years if necessary. I'm just a seeker on the path, if I have flaws, I am no different from anyone else, if I have opinions, they can change in the face of evidence, but I must have evidence. I am a follower of Thomas more than any other disciple. It is the failing of an academic, or in my case an academic wannabe, it is not a mortal or even a venial sin so far as I understand it.

There is much to learn, and more than one place to learn it. I learned more about how to view History from studying and cataloguing Classical, Jazz, Blues and Rock records than I ever did in a classroom. Who played where, on what, at what time, and how did the music change, lead me to who said what, when, and what was the result. It was the classroom that taught me that though a building may have many workmen, it is the architect and the patron and the senior craftsmen that make it what it is, not the hod carriers or the brick makers or the excavators of the foundation. This incidentally is a political metaphor for the Constitution and Bill of Rights, not for religion, though it may well apply there too, but I do not advance it in that realm.

Much has been lost or hidden, much can be learned from rediscovery and uncovery of that material and evaluation of what we think we know in the light of new rediscoveries of old ideas, ideas contemporary with the earliest documents of the Church and developed within the framework of what was then understood to be the Church.

Rob

Rob

Christian. I am a poor, miserable sinner who does not yet live up to all that Christ commands. If you expected some sort of perfection from me, you have the wrong view of me. I am one of those sinners that Christ came to seek and to save. He said that He did not come to save the righteous. I am extremely happy that I am not in that group. I need what He offers; forgiveness. I need it every day for a myriad of offenses.

A Christian is commanded to speak the truth. I do that, but fail fairly often to do so in love. In that I reduce my ability to be what God wants me to be. Perhaps some day I will learn to combine those two things, but, for the moment, my thinking runs in the lines of speaking the truth. That means telling someone if I think they are wrong about something which is important. I am still very much, in spirit, a Scottish fighter and a Viking marauder. That doesn't bother me at this point in time.

I am puzzled by the desire to put people in boxes. On the one hand, Christians are criticized for fragmenting into so many different groups, each with some small distinction in belief, while insisting that someone who thinks and believes across a spectrum of those groups must be put into one of the little boxes. Very well. For many years I was a member of Christ Church of Oak Brook. Christ Church is an interdenominational 'mega' church which was led for many years by Dr. Arthur DeKruyter. Dr. DeKruyter is fairly well known within the evangelical community, and one of his nephews is Bill Hybels who founded Willow Creek Community Church in Barrington, Illinois. Bill Hybels is one of the pastors who counseled President Clinton, at the President's request, after Clinton's indiscretions came to light. In fact, Clinton was interviewed at Willow Creek by Hybels during a service, and they spoke about the moral issues. Dr. DeKruyter has a Dutch Reformed background. I pretty much agree with the theological viewpoint of these men. As noted elsewhere, I also agree with Dr. John Gerstner (a historian) and Dr. R.C. Sproul (a theologian). Those are just a few of the people that I look to.

Modern Evangelicalism traces its roots through Augustine to Jesus and the New Testament. The ideas did not suddenly appear in the 17th and 18th centuries. What happened in the 17th and 18th centuries was the reform and recovery of the church from the political domination that it had fallen under due to the close connections between the state and the church.

The kind of Christians who I agree with do not expect the non-Christian, which I think you are, to accept the Bible or its canon as somehow binding and authoritative. The usual line of reasoning is that the four gospels are reasonably accurate historical documents. They certainly are that, but a discussion of that subject would take too much time here. Suffice it to say that they tell us what Jesus said and did. They tell us about His earthly life. Therefore, we can confront Jesus. Jesus said that He is God. That can be established beyond all doubt. That's what Doug keeps denying, but he's wrong and I've posted my reasons for saying that many times. Resuming.... Since Jesus claims to be God, how do we deal with that claim? He backed up His assertion in many ways, and our logical responses to His claims are quite limited. They are: He was demented. He was a deliberate liar. He is God. If He is God, then it is His authority that is behind the New Testament. We accept it because of who He is. If He is not God, then the canon doesn't really matter. Pick and choose as you like because Christianity is nothing more than a social movement. The heart of the matter is the Person and Nature of Jesus Christ. He is the big deal, and, without Him, none of it really matters.

As I said to DK, if one believes that Jesus is God, and is capable of keeping His promises, then we can rest assured that 'much' has not been lost or hidden. There are, of course, many scholars who study these things, and that is as it should be. However, if one tries to pick and choose among the documents with no clear framework within which to work, one will become lost in the forest with no way out.

to find books by those you have mentioned.

Keep well

Rob

RC Sproul has written several books. In addition, he has made a lot of material available in audio and/or video format. He used to publish this material on audio and VHS tape. I'm sure he has now shifted to CD and DVD formats. Click on the online store here. Look down a bit, and you will see where the catalog can be downloaded. One of the items he offers is a series of lectures on church history which were given by John Gerstner. Sproul is a very sharp guy who understands, and teaches, theology, history, and philosophy extremely well. He has also publicly accused a few televangelists of heresy for teaching a prosperity 'gospel'.

Another guy, who is much too liberal on social issues for me, is Tony Campolo. He is an evangelical and is respected within the evangelical community. He's a bit radical and very popular among the young adult group.

I find both Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's agendas overtly political. They seem to me to be using their religious prominence as a springboard to public office (Robertson) or to the selection of public servants or the influencing public policy (Robertson, Falwell, Ralph Reed and others too numerous to mention). I have no problem with them speaking their minds, but I do have problems with them influencing policy, candidacy, with them introducing religious preferences and religious doctrines and religious litmus tests into the realm of public policy. I disagree with abortion as a form of birth control, but there are other reasons for abortion than that, and I am loath to have my values imposed on someone whose situation I have not been in.

I do not believe that religious views should be reflected on the Supreme Court, because there are many religious views within the country and only 9 spaces on the court. I feel that religion must be kept entirely separate from both the political sphere and the judiciary. Obviously peoples religious values influence who they vote for, but I do not believe that candidates should be endorsed by religious leaders, black or white. Additionally who determines the validity of those views. There was a time when many white Southern Baptists were less than tolerant of Blacks. That view actually was represented on the Court for quite a long time which is why it took until the 1950's for integration to begin to happen.

Rob

I don't follow either Robertson or Falwell in terms of their positions and public comments. I think Robertson is suspect, and frequently comes 'off the wall'. However, he sometimes says things that are roundly condemned that may have some merit. When I have heard Falwell (I once saw him on Phil Donohue), he says things that I think are true and that make sense. Is that true of everything he says? No, of course not. I think he tends to be an honest man at the very least.

Religious views are the basis for our morality, and our sense of justice. As such, they very much belong on the court and in the government. Human institutions cannot exist without a religious viewpoint. Banning one particular viewpoint does not mean that such viewpoints will cease to exist. The one banned will simply be replaced by another. For example, when liberal German theologians succeeded in undermining the historic faith in Germany, Germany did not operate in some sort of theological/philosophical vacuum. Other views including Fascism simply moved into the vacated space. If the ACLU someday achieves what it desires, America may follow in the path of Germany. So far, it has not, but it is in a very weakened condition. I read recently a comment that those who refuse to believe in God do not escape belief. Rather they will then believe anything.

Yes, there was a time when many white Southern Baptists were less than tolerant of Blacks. So, also, were many Southern secularists and even academics. Such views were not part of the Southern Baptist church. They were a Southern view. They were also a Northern view, and a whole variety of other directions. What did the English Episcopalians do in Africa? Were they better? If not for the work of the William Wilberforce (acting as a Christian) they might not have been. Islam has a far worse record on slavery than any part of Christianity. In fact, many Arabs and other Muslims are still involved in it. Consider the Sudan for starters.

I was much more satisfied by your other post which appears above this one, and I respect your sources if not sharing your beliefs.

Religious morality pre-dates and in some ways parallels secular legality, and governmental laws, but it is my strong feeling based on much that has been written by them, that the Founding Fathers were wary of the conflicts that could arise from different religions pursuing different agendas. They had read and seen too much conflict between Protestant and Catholic and Protestant and Protestant. I don't agree with your analysis of German religious liberality undermining the state. It is quite clear that believing Lutherans, and believing Catholics strongly opposed Hitler and participated in the underground in Germany and elsewhere, and sadly equally observant Lutherans and Catholics bought the lies and willingly served the Reich.

I think you are underestimating the effect of the economic collapse of Germany following WW1 and the nascent nationalism of a much divided country recently united combined with Anti-Semitism into a fatal mix. I have elsewhere mentioned the two best known figures: Lutheran Pastor Niemoller and Catholic theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who's name finally came to me as I was finishing this post, ?early Alzheimer's?) both of whom were stuck in concentration camps for their views and died there. In this one particular idea I think you are making a mistake, but I have no quarrel with anything else.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/history/world/wh0033.html

My best wishes for a great Easter;

Rob

resisted Hitler. I was speaking of the state sanctioned Lutheran Church is Germany which was hollowed out by the liberal theologians. I do not, and cannot, speak for what happened in the Catholic Church. It is my understanding that the more evangelical parts of the protestant church were the parts that most resisted the Nazis. Indeed, Niemoller was in this part of the church. Certainly, you cannot deny the aquiescence of the state church to the Nazi regime.

While I am aware of the conventional wisdom that harsh sanctions imposed after WWI led to WWII, that does not explain the church's failure to resist the Nazi regime.

Wm Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyrrany, and John Tolands Hitler; a Definitive Biography. That doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with you, it just means I haven't come across the "hollowing out" of the Lutheran Church that you mention, I would like to read about it. There was certainly a strange and frenzied pursuit of pleasure in parts of pre-Nazi Germany, especially in Berlin, which I again tend to attribute to the dislocation caused by defeat and financial ruin.

If you can recall a book on the Lutheran situation, I'd be grateful.

In return may I offer Philip Hallie, Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed, the story of an Evangelical Protestant minister in southern France who's village saved scores if not hundreds of Jewish children under his guidance. It is a truly wonderful story.
http://www.amazon.ca/gp/reader/0060925175/ref=sib_dp_pt/701-7106472-8619536#reader-link

Thanks for your reply.

Rob

aware of.

Corrie ten Boom has long been honored by evangelical Christians as an exemplar of Christian faith in action. Arrested by the Nazis along with the rest of her family for hiding Jews in their Haarlem home during the Holocaust, she was imprisoned and eventually sent to the Ravensbruck concentration camp along with her beloved sister, Betsie, who perished there just days before Corrie's own release on December 31, 1944.

I will check with a friend to see if there has been anything written about the connection between liberal theology and the failure of the church.

family lineage back to 1654, all but the last 5 generations in small coastal villages like St. Monance and Kilrenny in the Kingdom of Fife, largest city: St Andrews of golf fame.

On my mother's side we come from the Midlands, right on the border between Cheshire and Derbyshire. My Mum was born in a house on the Buxton road leading from Macclesfield to Buxton. Both names turn out to be Norman French, and while the Boyters go back in Scotland to roughly 12th Century, they don't appear in Fife until the 16th Century, and there may have been a new infusion at that time. Family history suggests an Armada shipwreck but that's unreliable. The Naden (also spelt Nadin) side goes back to Willie the Conk or some associate thereof. The Nadin Society whom I have recently contacted, is run by the Reverend Denis Nadin who is a vicar in Harlow which was about 20 miles from where we lived in England 1997 to 2002. And I had no idea that I could have just dropped over, paid my dues and gotten all the info I needed. Such are the vagaries of life.

Don't know what Nadin means if anything since it doesn't show up in a dictionary as a noun, but Boyter means two things. The first is boitiere with one of those little ^ accents on the first i, a man who makes boxes and thus a cabinet and furniture maker. The reason this is interesting is that my Great Great Grandfather was a builder and cabinet maker when he came to the US ca 1850 and this continued for a couple of more generations. The other word is boitier without the accent which means "one who walks with a limp".

Rob

Actually what started me on this was contacting the person for my National Health Service Pension in Britain to update their records so that I can collect the tiny amount I'm owed. I love her name, as, I think will you, its Beth Godbehere. The English still have some of the greatest old fashioned names as indeed do the Scots where Smellie is a common one. And we think we had it tough growing up. "Here comes Smellie Brian, here comes Smellie Brian", or worse, some poor girls name.

Rob

a fair amount of time on genealogy in the past, and may get back to it again one of these days. My direct Scottish connection was Richard Wright McDonald and Helen Comrie Greyson who came to the US one week after they were married in Stirling, Scotland in 1857. It was a good news/bad news day when I found his father's name. The good news: I found the name. The bad news: his name was John McDonald. If you think about how many John McDonalds there are/were in Scotland, you will see the problem.

My grandmother did a lot of genealogy work on her roots, but she did not work on her husband's roots. She was a Kidd, and traced her roots into the 1600s. I have not penetrated much beyond 1800 yet. My grandmother's father was a Union soldier from Ohio, and her uncle was killed at Vicksburg. More interesting stories.

In fact, people can be quite moral, without a Christian or other religious context.

by Allied forces.

Niemoller's famous quote is about not doing anything, out of selfish motives, until he himself needed someone to speak up. He strikes me as a genuinely repentant person, not one who merely is sorry he wound up on the losing side. BTW he was a decorated U-boat officer of WWI. The carnage then drove him to the seminary.

A lesser-known statement of his, in his own book, is that he met Jehovah's Witnesses in his camp and was impressed. In fact, he said 'Too bad we all weren't like them; wouldn't have been any Holocaust.'* He's not alone in that reasoning. And you say the bible isn't practical?

* I can furnish the exact quote if you need it.

to both my slightly erratic memory and, in this case, my ignorance. I had not realized that the famous quotation was a post war one. Like many, if not all, I thought he died in the camps and I thought the quotation came from the Thirties or very early Forties and that it was a more general rather than a personal one. If you have a link to the full quotation or a book citation I would be grateful.

I have tried to keep reminding people here of the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses during the Holocaust. It is not something that I have ever lost track of or forgotten. Nor will I ever.

Best wishes

Rob

a legacy of religious values to miss the connection. I recently read that those who do not believe in God do not escape belief. They will believe anything. In this case, it is that moral values can survive when they are mere opinion and preference as, indeed, they must be in the absence of God.

Not to mention the Golden Rule (having nothing to do with Christianity...) which is just plain common sense, then what do you need religion for? A whole philosophy can be built on that, without the presence of any 'established belief system' as Christianity, Judaism, etc.

a person who does so? It's simply a relic of religion that you are coasting on. If it makes you feel good to do that, then that is a reason to observe the Golden Rule. If it doesn't give you any satisfaction, then that is a reason to ignore the Golden Rule.

Why should I care about fairness? All that I really care about, in the absence of God, is my own pleasure. If fairness brings me pleasure, then I will try to be fair. If not, there is no reason to be fair.

I think the best possible approach is to convince everyone else to observe the Golden Rule while I remain free to ignore it. That way, I reap all the benefit without incurring any of the cost. That, it seems to me, is the only rational approach to a Godless universe.

It can either be seen as an ethic or a relic of religion. I see it as a rule of thumb, since not everyone has the same idea about how they want to be treated. If a person wants to be beaten with a whip, and he goes by the GR, should he beat other people? I don't think so. So, there should be a kind of default setting -- Most people don't want to be beaten, insulted, robbed, or in any other way, injured, so that is how we treat other people. It makes them happy most of the time. And if they are happy, they treat you nicely. Everybody is happy.

On the other hand, if a person "crosses the line," then both people could be unhappy. In fact, the person crossing the line could end up hurt worse than the person he hurt, because the other guy decided to defend himself.

I conclude that for a civil society, it is in all our best interests, to act civilly.

I don't believe in altruism. I think we all do things for our own reasons. There is always something we believe can gain by what we decide to do. There are also things we like to avoid, as in harm to ourselves as well as harm to other people as I have illustrated.

My conclusion is that it pays to follow the ethic of reciprocity/golden rule. Not only do I benefit, but when what I do benefits others, that benefit tends to boomerang, thereby benefiting me. If you follow this reasoning, then you can see how selfish we are, and why the word "selfish" has a bad rap. People use it the wrong way, which is why it is defined wrongly in dictionaries.

This is a very rational approach, don't you think?

Aynian (as in Rand). None of that is precluded by the bible. I don't avoid Karma religions because they're ''selfish'', I avoid them because my philosophy comes from a book that forbids (!) mixing with other religions.

The bottom line in Christianity is at Ecclesiastes: ''The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.'' Ec 12:13,14, RSV

Not popular with most, especially on SE, because it seems to say, 'Only Jehovah can say what's right or wrong.' In fact, it does say that, take it or leave it.

As I've said, the bible works for me. To try it yourself, get hold of our latest study aid What Does the Bible Really Teach? - and a bible, of course - and go through it. One key is Ps 37:29. It's amazing how many ''religious'' ''Christians'' don't believe it's true. They even act as if it isn't in their bibles. Yet it is, even if the bible is fiction (as I've often said), so why isn't it taught?

Jesus, Paul, Peter, David, Johns (the writer and the baptiser) all believed it, and staked their lives on it. People whose names you don't know thought the same in the camps of Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and wartime USA and Canada. Isn't that somewhat different from the examples before you in the newspaper or on CNN.com?

pleasure. There's no rationality behind that. Something else may give someone else pleasure. Your way is no better or more rational than their way.

I think that the rational approach, as I said earlier, is to convince everyone else to obey the GR. Then they will be good to you. You, however, are totally free to ignore it when that suits you.

Also, why debate good or bad selfishness? There is no good or bad. There is only what you want, or I want depending on who's perspective is being discussed. Bad is what makes you unhappy or dissatisfied. Bad is thinking about meaning, truth, beauty, justice, etc. which don't really exist apart from your own desires.

Only the existence of God changes that rationale and its consequences.