You're probably looking at a celtic religion, then. Or gaelic. My own
religion fits in to those somewhere.


Wicca also blends many Native American AND oriental beliefs. It simply
couldn't have existed any longer than a century or two ago. Period.

Jess. Go read Miss Moon's post. She said herself "relatively new".

Stonehenge is one of the oldest structures on earth. And you could
argue as to what the title of the creators were, may as well call the
"Druids" for lack of better immediate definitions. But they were a
pre-celtic religion that died long, long ago.

Wicca came along many millenia later and copied pieces of what might
once have been their practices.

But it's a lifestyle that comes with doctrines, leaders, AND views of
the afterlife. That pretty much defines it as a religion. Perhaps in the
same way that a platypus is defined as a mammal, but still a religion.


I still don't know exactly why taoism isn't always counted.

Hmm. Interesting on the "earth mother" thing. But it doesn't quite
count.


Wicca was invented in the 50s (more or less- it's kinda open to
debate). It's big (and old) enough, now, to be considered a religion and
not a cult. But it's only been around a few decades, so whatever
references to its beliefs would have no ancient historical contexts
besides what they cobbled together from ancient (usually dead)
religions.

Hmm. I'd have to crack out the theology textbooks again. Most of what I
recited (other than my own religion's history) was, quite literally,
basic theology.


It's kinda like being asked to cite proof that acids and bases mix to
form salt, water, and usually hydrogen.


And buddhism is considered a religion by its focus on post-life events.
Including doctrines of reincarnation. Taoism doesn't.


And, yes, I do believe Taoism is that old. I never stated anything to
the contrary, did I?

Until they lose the paperwork....


But, no, I think you're right.

But almost *everyone* owns stock in halliburton, if that list is to be
believed. Hell, *I* have stock. So, no doubt, do the Clintons, Obama,
and probably bin Laden and Saddam before.... well.... you get the idea.


Just because you own stock (even a lot of stock) doesn't matter with a
company of this size and scope. I'm willing to bet they also own stock
in other fuel and/or defence contracting companies. On the democrat, as
well as republican, sides of the fence.


Corruption, maybe. But no more than usual. If we could fix the whole
damned mess for every member of every political party- I'd be happy. But
attacking one particular administration because of your *PERSONAL*
problems, whilst ignoring other politicians. Is biased, and just plain
morally wrong.

Maybe. But name any unpopular war where they DIDN'T immediately jump
ship once the administration changed.

And I don't think it likely there is life in the solar system. It's
possible for Venus, Mars, and -maybe- Europa. But not very likely for
any of them. Not impossible, a one in thousands chance, but not
impossible.


However, in the rest of the trillions of stars in the univers,
surrounded by countless more planets and moons. It's innevitable. Even
if only one in a million worlds will have life.... that's still millions
of worlds with natural life.


And who knows, amongst those millions of living worlds- there may be
species like us, expanding and making life livable on the dead worlds.

Uh. If you've been reading my posts- you should already know I meant
wings that weren't capable of allowing flight.

Does that mean we're actually WINNING this war? Heh. I honestly didn't
believe it could be done. Not that I believed the war couldn't be won. I
just didn't believe this administration could get their heads out of
each others' backsides long enough to do it.


Of course, soon, the democrats will take office and this entire war
will have been for nought. How sad.

Yeah. So, he's boned regardless. Might as well become more rich if he
can't win.

At least he has the joy of laughing at all the poor people who don't
like him and can't do ---- about it.

Hmm. Different religions, eh?


I, myself, and Ariran. We're an offshoot from the Zaoastric religions
that would branch off and eventually form Judaism. Ours ended up
mingling with the Gaelic/european religions of the region. With a
healthy dose of Grecian philosophies.

Oh, and there are at least a LOT of seperate religions.

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are the most populous. Buddhism. Then
Hindi. And taoism, but that's not really a religion.

Three major "celtic" religions. Seven if you extend to include the
other islands.

About eight Gaelic religions.

Santaria (voodoo), or its root religion in africa, at least. Plus two
or three other African faiths.

Then ten or fifteen truly seperate Native American religions. Including
Inuit (eskimo), Navajo, Croatan, whatever they called the Longhouse
building tribes' religion.



That's religions that have been standing for at LEAST a thousand years
or so, and are still practiced today. The numbers increase dramatically
if we include "extinct" and "new" religions.

Fair enough. Some people abuse terms. I thought you didn't know the
difference, so I felt the need to "educate". Not that a "cult" is
necessarily a bad thing, anyways.

No, I'm saying evolution *doesn't* have a goal. But only something with
a "goal" could have produced winged flight.


There is no use for wings, until they're large enough to allow gliding
and/or flight. Which is millions and millions of years into the
evolutionary process. And there's good reason to get rid of useless
evolutionary traits, such as wings. Takes a while, for sure, but it goes
in that direction. There's no way, for example, we'll evolve a use for
our tailbone- we'll never evolve a tail- it'll never have a use until it
gets quite long. We've been getting rid of our tails.

However, the origin of the tail is obvious- it came from the tail fin
(also very useful). So on and so forth, and the evolution of different
types of tails is no surprise at all. But wings are "spontaneous"
chances in arms. Arms, also useful in many species. But not arms with
functionless splats of feathers and/or membranes.


I understand evolution. You're simply failing to understand what I'm
saying. Because you're answering the wrong questions. Actually, you're
answering NO questions and simply repeating to me the things I already
know and, sometimes, have stated myself.

Actually, no. My neighbor doesn't like Bush, or Cheney, or the war in
any sence. In fact- he hates this war. But why should Halliburton
matter? It's one of many petroleum companies with interests in the area.
(Essentially, all of them do).

So, are you planning to answer my question? Or just to keep quoting
sources that prove, once again, that all rich people interact with one
another on a lot of mostly coincidental levels.


There is NO SECRET that bin Laden used to be a supposed friend of ours.
And that his, and our, financial activities were mixed together. Is it
illegal for us to share stock tips with our friends? Even when those
"friends" later turn around and attack us. As long as we don't help them
AFTER they stab us in the back- that's crossing the line.

I'm afraid I don't get the context of your question. Do you mean his
stock broker or something? I don't know what you're meaning, exactly, so
I cannot answer.

A just war or unjust peace? I'll go with the just war. I'd rather, like
all, a just peace. But we could not have that with Saddam in office.

Well, it's a corporation- many thousands of people own pieces of it.
Some controversy because Cheney is on the list of shareholders. Not that
it matters. My neighbor owns shares. So do many, many *many* others. If
someone's an investor, they almost certainly have payed long attention
to, if not purchased, halliburton's stock. And are almost guarenteed to
own stock in one of it's many subsidary companies.


As to the current CEO- don't know. Probably another corporate fatcat
who gives money to Republicans and Democrats on every election so he'll
have whomever wins in his pocket.