Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,366 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 243,589
Pageviews Today: 425,200Threads Today: 191Posts Today: 3,616
09:30 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 101344
Netherlands
09/17/2006 05:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Dear Gaia man,

thanks for all you time you are putting in this tread and on yahoo.

I am wondering if you could tell us something about the latest tensions between the Pope (Vatican) and the Moslim world. Do you think the Pope will be killed?

Thanks for your time.
Paperina
User ID: 142315
Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
09/17/2006 06:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Dear Gaia Man,

July 17th 2007 at 11.11 GMT might be an important moment for Planet Earth.

Here is a link to a site that you, and many of the souls reading your thread, may find interesting. Also contains interesting links (on page "The Plan"), with explanations and functioning of Earths energy grid, and how it is affected by our thoughts.

Enjoy.

Love and blessings. u2efine
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 127172
Canada
09/17/2006 06:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
I do not talk about Florida, sorry


Why not talk about Florida? Sure, the Hurricane season was bad. Awful for many. Ruin for many. But how many read your post? Is more to come? Why not talk about Florida but give the year 2012 for the Portals?

I only seek. I'm not here to destroy.
 Quoting: Diogenes



I, too , would like to hear about Florida. I am bracing myself...
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 127172
Canada
09/17/2006 06:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
I see many soldiers in blue across the USA. The great virus will make Martial Law a fact.
The Camps will be full, many people will die.
The old President will work together with the With House.

1 State will be total empty, leaving behind the Golden Sun.


Gaia Man, Can you see a date here?
 Quoting: Diogenes



I have a feeling that Gaia Man is talking about Florida, here....between the storms, tsunamis, etc....not a good future in this state, I feel....
paperina
User ID: 142315
Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
09/17/2006 06:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Dear Gaia Man,

July 17th 2007 at 11.11 GMT might be an important moment for Planet Earth.

Here is a link to a site that you, and many of the souls reading your thread, may find interesting. Also contains interesting links (on page "The Plan"), with explanations and functioning of Earths energy grid, and how it is affected by our thoughts.

Enjoy.

Love and blessings. u2efine
 Quoting: Paperina 142315



sorry, forgot the link....
[link to www.firethegrid.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 67258
United States
09/17/2006 06:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
He's becoming less forthcoming. Notice?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76573
United States
09/17/2006 06:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Gaia Man, do you see a critical mass approaching, where the sheep wake up, and the real perpetrators of such atrocities as 9/11 are exposed? I ask because I think the internet is the chink in their armour. In the past, they got away with this stuff, but the world wide web has sort of created a quantum leap in awareness. Will we bring down these bastards, and take our world back?

Thanks,
susano
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 76573
United States
09/17/2006 06:58 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
I do not talk about Florida, sorry


Why not talk about Florida? Sure, the Hurricane season was bad. Awful for many. Ruin for many. But how many read your post? Is more to come? Why not talk about Florida but give the year 2012 for the Portals?

I only seek. I'm not here to destroy.



I, too , would like to hear about Florida. I am bracing myself...
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 127172


I *think* that Gaia Man mentioned a wall of water in Florida, but I'm not sure. Some of the people on this thread are good at digging the posts up. The golden sun is in California, and I believe it pertained to drought.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 144852
Germany
09/18/2006 03:20 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Dear soul,

If you are refering of another disaster like 911
tuning in on New York, I don´t see anything, don´t worry. Its safe.

Take care.

To all souls who belief in our Lord Jesus Christ:
Revelation 18

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 144662


yeah for exact the same reason than you posted... if I was a resident of New York I would pack my things and go and try to convince friends and family to leave this city. I'd like to believe Gaia Man though when he says the city is safe.
Gaia Man

User ID: 3705
Netherlands
09/18/2006 04:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Dear Gaia man,

thanks for all you time you are putting in this tread and on yahoo.

I am wondering if you could tell us something about the latest tensions between the Pope (Vatican) and the Moslim world. Do you think the Pope will be killed?

Thanks for your time.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 101344



Dear Soul,

At one time, I wrote that this Pope is giving me a hard time to see.
I had some Visions about him, but they are surrounded by a mist. It is very difficult to see for me.
Sometimes I wish, I have a recorder for my Visions, so I could watch them again.

But these tensions now, does not come as a surprise to me. I can place it in the whole picture. Although it looks like the Pope explanation is accepted, I do not think everything is back to normal.

That this man from Bavaria, would play a big role in future events, that was clear to me.

I had a Vision about him, that he would be killed. I told you already last year.
Also I saw a connection with the USA, that made me to give an Interpretation, that he would be killed in the USA.

Now I never understand this, and it made me very unsure.
For the Vatican, it seems to be covered in mist for me. But we will see, security building up,around the Vatican.

The Pope will have to leave the Vatican,
to find a safe place. I think he will go to the Swiss mountains.
But I am not sure, which Pope!
I think it will be the next new Pope.
Or the current one, I am not sure.
The Vatican will be attacked, like I told you earlier.

The Pope we see today, will not be reign for a long time.
I could see a dark cloud above him, when
he was standing at the balcony for the first time. That he would be elected was no suprise to me. I expected him.

There was a fraud in the election.
There a strange powers behind the closed doors at the Vatican, but again
it is very hard to see.

Now I do not say, he is a good or a bad person! Do not understand me wrong.
Because it is not to me to Judge any person.

But simplify the question to,: Will the Pope be in danger?

Yes, he will be in danger, and his last speech made this weekend, was not the end to the tensions with many Muslims.
Tensions only will get higher.
For this, keep a close eye and ear to Egypt, Iran, Indonesia and Pakistan.


Again I say, it fits in the building up,
to the religious World War, we will see.

Take Care
A small change at one place in a complex system, can have large effects elswhere..
Gaia Man

User ID: 3705
Netherlands
09/18/2006 07:53 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
I do not talk about Florida, sorry


Why not talk about Florida? Sure, the Hurricane season was bad. Awful for many. Ruin for many. But how many read your post? Is more to come? Why not talk about Florida but give the year 2012 for the Portals?

I only seek. I'm not here to destroy.

Is truth found here?
 Quoting: Diogenes


Dear Soul,

Take that Light closer to you.
Truth you can find in your selfs.
Open your Soul to the Light.
You will shine!

Take Care
A small change at one place in a complex system, can have large effects elswhere..
Common Sense
User ID: 1595
Netherlands
09/18/2006 08:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Dear Gaiaman,I have a destiny question for you,relating to palmistry.I know of several people,who've had their palms read,some by well-known gypsies.For instance my own mother,already in her eighties,was recently told she'd live to be a hundred,I was happy to learn.I'm also supposed to grow very old,another 35 years or so.I know palmistry to be quite accurate,judging by their correct interpretations of people's personal past.As you'll probably know,there is a very close nervelike connection between brain and hand.There's even a kind of handyoga called handdynamics,developed by a friend of mine,interacting with and improving the brain's performance.What I'm trying to say,is that these personal predictions seem to indicate a world continuing in its present state and physical reality,perhaps with some changes here and there and with no 2012 switch into a multiverse or with portal options,if you get my drift? What are your views on these personal predictions,indicating a relatively peaceful world ahead?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 101344
Netherlands
09/18/2006 04:23 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Dear Gaiaman,

Did you ever had vision about what happened at 9/11? Did you have visions before it happened?

also...what is your opinion about what happened at 9/11. Did the terrorists attacked us at that day or were they people with a hidden agenda in the US that were behind this?

thank you.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 19831
United States
09/18/2006 05:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Dear Gaia man,

Do you see the current threat of alqeada attack on NY and DC as credible?

Thanks!

PS- What do you see for Bush?
Caesar
User ID: 145114
Germany
09/18/2006 07:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Dear Gaiaman,
Thanks for your Message and ALL love for you and familly.

Caesar
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 128281
Canada
09/18/2006 07:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
HI Gaia Man another try,

Is it possible that ET beings are using the same Portal(Vortex) that you saw in your vision?

And Is it possible to generate a Portal??

And what was Your first first... Vision you remember??? and what was your age????


And those Video's Clips Gaia Goofy Thum
Lot of your time in those Clips....!

Thank'S

Yolgnu
-Human beings never really exists as we see or understand it.
ac
User ID: 145241
United States
09/19/2006 01:24 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Hi GaiaMan, finally sat down last night at my big computer and watched your videos. They were wonderful! Especially Blue Moon..had to be my favorite. Thanks for taking the time to make them..very nice.
ADK
User ID: 140107
Portugal
09/19/2006 02:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Time is a line
That come and goes
If you look like a blind
You can only see souls

tnks for sharing your vesions

Take Care Gaia Man
Diogenes

User ID: 144351
United States
09/19/2006 09:07 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
This is the most read post on this site.(65,000+) Almost more than the next 3 runners up, total. Has anyone kept track of what has come to past?
Is truth found here?
a german guy
User ID: 145544
Germany
09/19/2006 09:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
This is the most read post on this site.(65,000+) Almost more than the next 3 runners up, total. Has anyone kept track of what has come to past?
 Quoting: Diogenes



impressingly a lot has already come true. Otherwise people would not keep attention.

But it is not only "prophecies", I think GaiaMan has some more to offer than just that.

If you read his statements and visit his new homepage you will automatically calm down and feel a great peace.

That's it.

He brings rest and peace in horrible times. I am afraid we will need many more such people that would behave like GaiaMan ( blessed be he ).

Greetings / Germany
Sascha
mathetes

User ID: 33914
United States
09/19/2006 09:27 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
This is the most read post on this site.(65,000+) Almost more than the next 3 runners up, total. Has anyone kept track of what has come to past?



impressingly a lot has already come true. Otherwise people would not keep attention.

But it is not only "prophecies", I think GaiaMan has some more to offer than just that.

If you read his statements and visit his new homepage you will automatically calm down and feel a great peace.

That's it.

He brings rest and peace in horrible times. I am afraid we will need many more such people that would behave like GaiaMan ( blessed be he ).

Greetings / Germany
Sascha
 Quoting: a german guy 145544

Link?
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 145560
United States
09/19/2006 10:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
[link to hisz.rsoe.hu]

Climate Change - Europe

Event summary

GLIDE Number CC-20060918-7637-HUN

Event type - Climate Change

Date / time [UTC] 18/09/2006 - 09:24:24 (Military Time, UTC)

Country - Hungary

County / State - Csongrád

City - Mórahalom

Log date 18/09/2006 - 09:24:24 (Military Time, UTC)

Damage level - Catastrophic

Latitude: N 46° 13.020 Longitude: E 19° 52.980

-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------

DESCRIPTION

Grapes still feature on the coat of arms of this small Hungarian town but in the dry fields, weeds are taking over from vines and fruit trees. The sandy soil around Morahalom in southern Hungary is getting alarmingly dry, and experts and locals warn that a large area of the region risks turning into desert. Morahalom is in the Homokhatsag district which is home to around 40,000 people and has always had sandy soil -- Homok means sand in Hungarian. But now the deterioration in soil quality may be threatening the livelihood of 300,000 people or more in a larger surrounding area between the Danube and Tisza rivers due to climate change and a legacy of unsustainable farming and water management. "When the strong winds come in the spring ... then everything becomes grey ... and it creates a horrible storm of dust, like in the desert," says Morahalom's Deputy Mayor Laszlo Csanyi, a potato and pepper farmer. Hungary's case illustrates the dangers of a global problem of creeping desertification. Experts say deserts are spreading because of degradation of soil in dryland areas, mainly due to a rising human population. Many fields in the Homokhatsag area look green, but that healthy appearance is deceptive. One reason for the colour is the spread of an aggressive weed whose roots can draw water from much deeper than fruits and vegetables. "(Desertification) is like high blood pressure or diabetes in humans," said Balint Csatari, director of the regional institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA) in Kecskemet, southeast of the capital Budapest.

"You cannot see it just by looking at the person, but inside it is working insidiously and destroying the organism." On average, ground water levels in the region have dropped by more than 3 metres (9.8 ft) since the 1970s, with a fall of up to 7 metres in some places. "We have serious reasons to suppose that a change has started which could have catastrophic consequences," said Csatari. Csatari said the main reason was global climate change, which has led to warmer and more extreme weather. The Homokhatsag is drier than the continental climate in most of Hungary, but it also suffers its share of floods -- like those that ruined crops across the country this year. But floods do not compensate for creeping sand and drought. "It is no use when it rains a lot in one go, "said Jozsef Racz, managing director of the Morakert farm cooperative based in Morahalom. "The top soil does not hold the water ... and by the afternoon the sand becomes so hot again that you cannot walk on it barefoot." Another reason for the soil degradation is human activity.

Canals were built in the 1940s to regulate flood water, but they then started channelling water to the nearby Tisza river even in drier years, sometimes draining lakes along their way. Communist authorities also replaced much of the region's traditional, small-scale fruit and vegetable production with large grain fields which looked better in five-year plans, but which could not thrive on sand and drained more water. Hungary has the European Union's largest grain surplus but the sandy soil in the Homokhatsag and much of the 8,000-10,000 square kilometre area between the Danube and Tisza is better suited to orchards and vineyards -- as long as the water lasts. Indigenous trees were also replaced with species which used more water. Vines, whose roots used to stabilise the sand, also disappeared, some to make way for grain farms, others as farmers switched to fruits and vegetables, which need irrigation. Deputy Mayor Csanyi is seeking ways to mitigate the effects of the creeping sand and says one solution could be to find a way of storing rainwater during storms or floods. Lining fields with water efficient tree species could also provide shelter from the strong winds that shift the sand and speed up the evaporation of water. Irrigation needs to become more efficient, too, aiming water straight at the plants to save every drop. "When spreading water through any normal dispenser, 30-40 percent evaporates immediately, the plants cannot use it, it is inefficient," Racz said. "If there are problems with water, these farms will not be able to function, these families will be without work and income."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 145378
India
09/19/2006 11:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Dear Gaiaman,I have a destiny question for you,relating to palmistry.I know of several people,who've had their palms read,some by well-known gypsies.For instance my own mother,already in her eighties,was recently told she'd live to be a hundred,I was happy to learn.I'm also supposed to grow very old,another 35 years or so.I know palmistry to be quite accurate,judging by their correct interpretations of people's personal past.As you'll probably know,there is a very close nervelike connection between brain and hand.There's even a kind of handyoga called handdynamics,developed by a friend of mine,interacting with and improving the brain's performance.What I'm trying to say,is that these personal predictions seem to indicate a world continuing in its present state and physical reality,perhaps with some changes here and there and with no 2012 switch into a multiverse or with portal options,if you get my drift? What are your views on these personal predictions,indicating a relatively peaceful world ahead?
 Quoting: Common Sense 1595


Common Sense, I have the exact same question as you, and more.

I am currently based in India. Gaiaman predicted a massive earthquake in Southern India. He didn't say when, just that the poor people of India would be one of the first to be hit. Didn't take it seriously at first - after all, there aren't many known fault lines or a history of quakes in the region. A day after I read that I had a small chat with a psychic friend of mine, a spiritual teacher. I mentioned in passing about someone in a forum who had posted about a quake to hit South India that would nearly destroy it. To my surprise, far from laughing it off, his first reaction was "Oh don't worry, that won't happen until next year (2007)". Huh!??! "You have a long time to prepare. Besides, the split may not happen in the physical plane, but in the astral. We know, and are watching to see what transpires."

Umm...

Then a few days ago I read about a man named Babu Kalayil from Kerala.

[link to www.hindu.com]

So much about him. But it's this follow-up atricle that has me foxed.

[link to www.hindu.com]

Quote: "A report quoting Babu had appeared in Tamil newspapers in mid-November last, saying that several States in India as well as the Andaman Nicobar Islands, would be hit by the effects of a massive earthquake. Babu had claimed to have "seen" heat waves emanating from the sun and causing disturbances on earth."

Double huh?!??

Gaiaman, you could be right on the mark with this one.

About personal destinies not following the "doomed" route, I'm as confused as you are, CS. Not that I swear by them, but I feel drawn to astrology and the esoteric arts for some reason. Nothing in my charts (or those of anyone in my household) indicate any big upheavals. I had my palm read - same result. I even visited a coffee cup reader, she told me the exact same things that a certain "nadi" astrologer said. Most notable, there will be "no tragedies", and that one of my children (the same one was mentioned each time) would be hugely successful in his life. Obviously, their interpretation of success still pertains to our materialistic world. HOW does everything presented here fit in with our understanding of the coming earth changes and 2012?

Any answers?
Kemo

User ID: 65489
United States
09/20/2006 12:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Link?
 Quoting: mathetes

[link to blog.360.yahoo.com]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 110639
Netherlands
09/21/2006 10:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks
By George Friedman

On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on "Faith, Reason and the University" at the University of Regensburg. In his discussion (full text available on the Vatican Web site) the pope appeared to be trying to define a course between dogmatic faith and cultural relativism -- making his personal contribution to the old debate about faith and reason. In the course of the lecture, he made reference to a "part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a long passage to understand his point -- that:

"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.' The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death ...'

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: 'For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent.'"

The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift and sharp over the passage citing Manuel II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Obviously, this passage is a quote from a previous text -- but equally obviously, the pope was making a critical point that has little to do with this passage.

The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It begins by pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsion when he lacked political power, but that when he became strong, his perspective changed. Benedict goes on to make the argument that violent conversion -- from the standpoint of a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped by the priority of reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that God is absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes, it is acceptable.

Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forced conversion in their history. He also knows that the Aristotelian tendency is not unique to Christianity. In fact, that same tendency exists in the Muslim tradition, through thinkers such as al-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in relation to Islam as Thomas Aquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to Judaism. And all three religions struggle not only with the problem of God versus science, but with the more complex and interesting tripolar relationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism. There is always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubled by faith and the local clergyman who claims to speak for God personally.

Benedict's thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to be considered. Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throw a hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it at this moment in history. The other discussion might well be more worthy of the ages, but this question -- what did Benedict do, and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for he could have no doubt what the response, in today's politically charged environment, was going to be.

A Deliberate Move

Let's begin with the obvious: Benedict's words were purposely chosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner, accidentally blurted out. The pope was giving a prepared lecture that he may have written himself -- and if it was written for him, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover, each of the pope's public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his staff, and there is no question that anyone who read this speech before it was delivered would recognize the explosive nature of discussing anything about Islam in the current climate. There is not one war going on in the world today, but a series of wars, some of them placing Catholics at risk.

It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text, but that makes the remark all the more striking; even the pope had to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are many other fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that he could have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone one involving such an incendiary quote. But he chose this citation and, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short passage in the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and was the entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was a deliberate choice, not a slip of the tongue.

As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could be anticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text of the speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion by violence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the pope intended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged in violence on behalf of religion, and that it is driven by a view of God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims' protests (including some violent reactions) over cartoons that were printed in a Danish newspaper, the pope and his advisers certainly must have been aware that the Muslim world would go ballistic over this. Benedict said what he said intentionally, and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he has not apologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might have caused. He has not retracted his statement.

So, why this, and why now?

Political Readings

Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. The church is no stranger to geopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism in Afghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is something to be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, which helped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play power politics.

Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict's speech politically.

One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching the U.S.-jihadist war. He can see it is going badly for the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He witnessed the recent success of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas' political victory among the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the fundamental strength to threaten the West at this point, but they are certainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered that Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy about the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but it does not follow that his successor is eager to see a U.S. defeat there.

The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S. President George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has been trying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clash of civilizations, one that will last for generations and will determine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he accepts Bush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush's position. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam and Christianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a move to overcome the tension between religion and science in the West. But he did not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there is a war on and that the pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive, not only in the war but also in domestic American politics, Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his words on the scale of war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could be read as words of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict's mind on this, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush's position.

It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended an intellectual intervention in the war. The church obviously did not support the invasion of Iraq, having criticized it at the time. On the other hand, it would not be in the church's interests to see the United States simply routed. The Catholic Church has substantial membership throughout the region, and a wave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and the church at risk. From the Vatican's perspective, the ideal outcome of the war would be for the United States to succeed -- or at least not fail -- but for the church to remain free to criticize Washington's policies and to serve as conciliator and peacemaker. Given the events of the past months, Benedict may have felt the need for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way that warned the Muslim world that the church's willingness to endure vilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he is prepared, at least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannot read his mind, but neither can we believe that he was oblivious to events in the region and that, in making his remarks, he was simply engaged in an academic exercise.

This perspective would explain the timing of the pope's statement, but the general thrust of his remarks has more to do with Europe.

There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful wave of Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides. Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their native culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass. Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatened to work for the conversion of Europe. In general, the Vatican's position has ranged from quiet to calls for tolerance. As a result, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged from the church body -- particularly working and middle-class Catholics -- and its fears.

As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks at Regensburg would come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He also knew that this criticism would continue despite any gestures of contrition. Thus, with his remarks, he moved toward closer alignment with those who are uneasy about Europe's Muslim community -- without adopting their own, more extreme, sentiments. That move increases his political strength among these groups and could cause them to rally around the church. At the same time, the pope has not locked himself into any particular position. And he has delivered his own warning to Europe's Muslims about the limits of tolerance.

It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-out statement. It is also obvious that the Vatican had no illusions as to how the Muslim world would respond. The statement contained a verbal blast, crafted in a way that allowed Benedict to maintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope already has taken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but those of another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly aware that this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things, save for giving Benedict the means for distancing himself from the statement when the inevitable backlash occurred. Indeed, the anger in the Muslim world remained intense, and there also have been emerging pockets of anger among Catholics over the Muslim world's reaction to the pope, considering the history of Islamic attacks against Christianity. Because he reads the newspapers -- not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highly capable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had to have known how the war was going, and that his statement likely would aid Bush politically, at least indirectly. Finally, he would be aware of the political dynamics in Europe and that the statement would strengthen his position with the church's base there.

The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. His predecessor took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapse of communism, started sniping at the United States over its materialism and foreign policy. Benedict may have decided that the time has come to throw the weight of the church against radical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the Muslims reject Benedict's statement, they have to acknowledge the rationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to lift the religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholars by demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason.

From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue.

The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat.

It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something he doesn't know himself yet.
_________________
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 110639
Netherlands
09/21/2006 10:30 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope's Remarks
By George Friedman

On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on "Faith, Reason and the University" at the University of Regensburg. In his discussion (full text available on the Vatican Web site) the pope appeared to be trying to define a course between dogmatic faith and cultural relativism -- making his personal contribution to the old debate about faith and reason. In the course of the lecture, he made reference to a "part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a long passage to understand his point -- that:

"In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the 'infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.' The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death ...'

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: 'For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent.'"

The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift and sharp over the passage citing Manuel II: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Obviously, this passage is a quote from a previous text -- but equally obviously, the pope was making a critical point that has little to do with this passage.

The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It begins by pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsion when he lacked political power, but that when he became strong, his perspective changed. Benedict goes on to make the argument that violent conversion -- from the standpoint of a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped by the priority of reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that God is absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes, it is acceptable.

Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forced conversion in their history. He also knows that the Aristotelian tendency is not unique to Christianity. In fact, that same tendency exists in the Muslim tradition, through thinkers such as al-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in relation to Islam as Thomas Aquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to Judaism. And all three religions struggle not only with the problem of God versus science, but with the more complex and interesting tripolar relationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism. There is always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubled by faith and the local clergyman who claims to speak for God personally.

Benedict's thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to be considered. Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throw a hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it at this moment in history. The other discussion might well be more worthy of the ages, but this question -- what did Benedict do, and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for he could have no doubt what the response, in today's politically charged environment, was going to be.

A Deliberate Move

Let's begin with the obvious: Benedict's words were purposely chosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner, accidentally blurted out. The pope was giving a prepared lecture that he may have written himself -- and if it was written for him, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover, each of the pope's public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his staff, and there is no question that anyone who read this speech before it was delivered would recognize the explosive nature of discussing anything about Islam in the current climate. There is not one war going on in the world today, but a series of wars, some of them placing Catholics at risk.

It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text, but that makes the remark all the more striking; even the pope had to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are many other fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that he could have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone one involving such an incendiary quote. But he chose this citation and, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short passage in the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and was the entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was a deliberate choice, not a slip of the tongue.

As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could be anticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text of the speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion by violence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the pope intended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged in violence on behalf of religion, and that it is driven by a view of God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims' protests (including some violent reactions) over cartoons that were printed in a Danish newspaper, the pope and his advisers certainly must have been aware that the Muslim world would go ballistic over this. Benedict said what he said intentionally, and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he has not apologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might have caused. He has not retracted his statement.

So, why this, and why now?

Political Readings

Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. The church is no stranger to geopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism in Afghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is something to be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, which helped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play power politics.

Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict's speech politically.

One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching the U.S.-jihadist war. He can see it is going badly for the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He witnessed the recent success of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas' political victory among the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the fundamental strength to threaten the West at this point, but they are certainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered that Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy about the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but it does not follow that his successor is eager to see a U.S. defeat there.

The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S. President George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has been trying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clash of civilizations, one that will last for generations and will determine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he accepts Bush's view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush's position. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam and Christianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a move to overcome the tension between religion and science in the West. But he did not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there is a war on and that the pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive, not only in the war but also in domestic American politics, Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his words on the scale of war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could be read as words of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict's mind on this, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush's position.

It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended an intellectual intervention in the war. The church obviously did not support the invasion of Iraq, having criticized it at the time. On the other hand, it would not be in the church's interests to see the United States simply routed. The Catholic Church has substantial membership throughout the region, and a wave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and the church at risk. From the Vatican's perspective, the ideal outcome of the war would be for the United States to succeed -- or at least not fail -- but for the church to remain free to criticize Washington's policies and to serve as conciliator and peacemaker. Given the events of the past months, Benedict may have felt the need for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way that warned the Muslim world that the church's willingness to endure vilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he is prepared, at least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannot read his mind, but neither can we believe that he was oblivious to events in the region and that, in making his remarks, he was simply engaged in an academic exercise.

This perspective would explain the timing of the pope's statement, but the general thrust of his remarks has more to do with Europe.

There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful wave of Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides. Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their native culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass. Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatened to work for the conversion of Europe. In general, the Vatican's position has ranged from quiet to calls for tolerance. As a result, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged from the church body -- particularly working and middle-class Catholics -- and its fears.

As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks at Regensburg would come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He also knew that this criticism would continue despite any gestures of contrition. Thus, with his remarks, he moved toward closer alignment with those who are uneasy about Europe's Muslim community -- without adopting their own, more extreme, sentiments. That move increases his political strength among these groups and could cause them to rally around the church. At the same time, the pope has not locked himself into any particular position. And he has delivered his own warning to Europe's Muslims about the limits of tolerance.

It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-out statement. It is also obvious that the Vatican had no illusions as to how the Muslim world would respond. The statement contained a verbal blast, crafted in a way that allowed Benedict to maintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope already has taken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but those of another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly aware that this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things, save for giving Benedict the means for distancing himself from the statement when the inevitable backlash occurred. Indeed, the anger in the Muslim world remained intense, and there also have been emerging pockets of anger among Catholics over the Muslim world's reaction to the pope, considering the history of Islamic attacks against Christianity. Because he reads the newspapers -- not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highly capable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had to have known how the war was going, and that his statement likely would aid Bush politically, at least indirectly. Finally, he would be aware of the political dynamics in Europe and that the statement would strengthen his position with the church's base there.

The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. His predecessor took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapse of communism, started sniping at the United States over its materialism and foreign policy. Benedict may have decided that the time has come to throw the weight of the church against radical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the Muslims reject Benedict's statement, they have to acknowledge the rationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to lift the religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholars by demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason.

From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue.

The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat.

It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something he doesn't know himself yet.
_________________
Diogenes

User ID: 144351
United States
09/21/2006 12:00 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
I hope we can stay with the theme of this thread. Gaia man where are you?
Is truth found here?
Gaia Man

User ID: 3705
Netherlands
09/21/2006 06:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
UK

There is coming The Great Cold.
Many people shall leave, for many it will be to late! This year before The Great Cold, a murder will shock your nation.


Gaia Man: Do you feel this murder has happened? Is it still to come?
 Quoting: Diogenes


Dear Soul,

For what I saw in that Vision,
the moment has not come yet.
It will come, and have an huge
impact on the people of The UK.
Confusion will be big.

Take Care
A small change at one place in a complex system, can have large effects elswhere..
Gaia Man

User ID: 3705
Netherlands
09/21/2006 06:09 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Hi GM! The seasons are changing! This time of year is beautiful! Thank you for the videos and work you put out for all of us!

Take Care!
 Quoting: Pegasi 144098


Dear Soul,

Thank you.
Good to know, some Souls like them.
You are welcome.

Take Care
A small change at one place in a complex system, can have large effects elswhere..
Gaia Man

User ID: 3705
Netherlands
09/21/2006 06:15 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The Future of your country?..ask and I will tell you,...
Hi Gaiaman,

Can you provide some information on portals? How are they recognized/located and how are they accessed?

Thank You
 Quoting: shibumi2


Dear Soul,

I already told a lot about that in
my earlier writings.
Please understand, if I have to
write this time after time,
it does cost me lots of time.
Try to find it back,
the link to the PDF with search tool
is [link to www.h-kon.net]
I hope you can find the answers.

Take Care
A small change at one place in a complex system, can have large effects elswhere..