17-03-2000 10:08									#61
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Nice discussion. I like Harel's ideas. Maybe this should be continued at the OT (that is where all my posts are from ). ICQ me sometime as well.

	21-03-2000 10:08									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

The insinuation that Christianity and rational thought do not coincide is nothing more than antichristian propoganda from people who claim neutrality in the religious sphere. Of course any true christian knows that those who are not for Christ are against Him.

Considering that I go to an Ivy League University and am triple majoring, I think its safe to say my rational thought capabilities are quite intact thank you very much.

Separating Christianity from state politics is not off topic in the least to answer your other objection. In fact, to those who have been convinced by the scriptural evidence that the God of the New Testament and Old Testament scriptures is real, it is impossible to divorce Him from the affairs of the nations. Therefore, your point on my posts being offtopic when it comes to the question of simulating civilization is entirely unsupported. The greatest statesmen in history have often had Christianity foremost on their mind when making decisions. Examples of this can be found in everyone from Bismarck (a devout Lutheran) to our founding fathers in their designing of state and federal constitutions.

Finally, I really wish you wouldn't feel sorry for me, because I am quite fortunate to have the mercy of God in Christ, something which no one deserves. I do however feel sorry for you, understanding that outside of Christ you have no hope for salvation. I will sincerely pray that God through Christ would have mercy on you and save you. God bless you!

	21-03-2000 10:21									#63
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

The ignorance of the antichristian lobby never ceases to amaze me. Their savior is nothing other than the complete secularization of society, as if Western Civilization owes its success to its secularism rather than God. This of course is putrid nonsense, and is easily demonstrated by the historical facts. Indeed, when certain individuals like the one two notes above mention that Christianity has clouded my thought capacity and ability to reason, it seems this human being who embraces reason has left it a long time ago. He seems to forget that the greatest Universities were founded by Christians in accordance with Christian ideals, he fails to realize that the greatest nations in the history of the world have been Christian, he also fails to realize the incredible logical consistency of the Christian religion. To keep on topic, civilization would not be where it is today if it were not for the Christian religion. Civilization has been built on Christian institutions (schools to governments) and Judeo Christian principles. Opposing Christ will not only get you nowhere, it will destroy you.

	20-03-2000 23:56									#64
	Tired of ads?

Someone told me about this thread - had to see it to believe it.

I am not capable of discussing political theories, so I only have one reply to CivNation: Humble yourself in the Name of our Lord and present yourself as a servant to others, as our Lord did.

	21-03-2000 01:02									#67
	Increase the size of your Attachments

In my very short post, I only said to humble yourself. Nothing more, nothing less. You can present your arguments humbly, in the sprit of love. Afterall, you are addressing other human beings and the only approach is that of love for that person, not necessarily of what they believe. That is the attitude of a servant.

I apologize for prolonging this OT conversation.

	21-03-2000 01:25									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Korn,

Yes that is absolutely correct. You just have to add one more factor, its that Christ did not come to save all sinners. If you're new to the faith you probably are not very familiar with it, but there is something known as predestination. Ephesians 1 and Romans 9, as well as many many other places, make this truth very clear. Christ came only to save His sheep, He did not come to save all people, nor does God will to save all people. God will have mercy on whomever He wishes. God has not chosen to give everyone a chance at mercy. God DOES wish to save EVERY LAST ONE of all of the elect, and He WILL do so because His call is irresistable.

Those who are the elect will hear the gospel and believe it. Because we do not know who these people are, we are to treat all of the heathen as our potential brothers. What I am trying to demonstrate to Steve is the nature of Christian behavior. Christ does not want us, and never wanted us, to cowtow to unbelievers. Christ wants us to treat them with love and respect, as we should any neighbor. That is done by preaching the gospel first and foremost. It is NOT done by lying to the heathen and telling them that their point of view is just as good as the Christian point of view, and it also is not done by keeping Christianity out of conversation and making it only a "private" affair. Christ has guaranteed He will subdue and conquer all nations with the gospel, it is not done with Christians who are afraid of the heathen and what they will do. We must seek strength from God. The first commandment is to love God, that must be the Christians emphasis.

	21-03-2000 02:24									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ah, my brother, you misunderstood what I was apologizing for! But let's move beyond that. In presenting the truth of the gospel to others, do it in the spirit of love, not with name calling or tearing down others as a person.

	21-03-2000 02:26									#72
	Full PM-box? Change here!

sorry, slow network
[This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited March 20, 2000).]

	21-03-2000 02:27									#73
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

sigh...
[This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited March 20, 2000).]

	26-03-2000 04:00									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Harel: I'm knida disappointed of Yosi Sarid lately. Not doing enough to keep us from jewish religious fanatics.
To all interested my UIN is 18345800.
Just mention who are you in the authorization request.

And a note to CivNation: I believe in freedom of speech and the freedom to express one's opinions but your posts regarding christianity sound to much like a preach. I think that in this amount it becomes OT. It has little to do with Civ3 and more to do with personal belief. I think this subject can be signed by saying that each person should carefully choose his beliefs and be proud of them (though not too much, as wiser people mentioned it is a sin which is heavily punished by christ, and especially his dad. )

OT: this thread is now very long. maybe some one should start a new one with the same subject? I have to wait 2 minutes for the pages to load (the horors of 33.6 modems laydies and gentlemen).

	26-03-2000 04:28									#78
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Pride is not 1/7 of the deadly sins. Thats a roman catholic invention. By the way, the reason why I mention "Ivy League University" is to provide an example that counteracts your pride. Frankly being at an Ivy League University is not much to be proud of these days, and they have become quite godless. The reason I was referring to it was to make it clear of the pride I was seeing on the opposing end, especially the godless pride that mocks Christianity as ignorant when they have no understanding it is that very religion they mock which has given them civilization.

	26-03-2000 04:49									#79
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Now that I have dealt with the hypocrites in this forum, ie all militant antichristian propogandists (I love how they like to call christians hypocrites, but never realize that the real hypocrites are themselves). Indeed who has brought civilization but Judeo Christian values.

As for those who accuse this discussion of being offtopic, you still aren't seeing clearly. You see, the entire point of this is to demonstrate one thing to you: proponents of democratic peace have once again fallen for a false utopian concept that will yield no fruits in the long run. There is NO UTOPIA that can be invented by mankind. It has tried time and time again throughout history, from communism to Athens. Every civilization has fallen from grace and power. I still find it incredible that some actually believe mankind can built a utopia on its own. Mankind is inherently lost in sin and corruption, and there will be no utopia until the kingdom of God is fully manifested. Therefore out with this ridiculous democratic peace theory. Whether people want to admit it or not, the old school realists are absolutely positively right. Balance of power will always be the prevalent situation between kingdoms. Commerce and empire do not fully mix as has been demonstrated time and time again, and the bottom line is that the only reason why the world has been peaceful lately is because the hegemon of the United States has so overpowered the weaker nations of Europe that of course there is not going to be a great war like we saw 60 years ago! Yet the democratic peace therorists, relying on their antiGod utopian dreams, scream that they have found the solution to humanity, just make a few nations democratic! GIBBERISH AND RUBBISH! Wake up! When the United States declines in power, the democracies will be at each others throats again. No manmade system can deliver the goods of utopia. Let history be your guide in that.

	26-03-2000 07:12									#80
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I study political science, but I don't start picking on a computer game just because it isnt "historically or theoretically correct".

Is the story behind Railroad Tycoon an accurate version of the railroad history or is F16Falcon an accurate description of the relations we had with Sovjet in the -70/80's?

Who cares? I just play, am I all that weird?


Christopher

	26-03-2000 09:55									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think your entire argument can be shut down with the realization that no Civ to date is a true democracy. Ancient Greece was closest because every MAN voted...however women and slaves did not. The US is a poor example of Democracy (techincally speaking a democracy must have every person vote once on every issue with direct majority vote deciding the outcome of a decision) All countries claiming to be democratic are actually Republics. True democracy and true communism are two forms of government that just do not exist. The only way they can exist is with a minute number of people. So if you think about it, your theory on democratic peace can not be proven OR disproven to date. Philisophically, a TRUE democracy could easily declare war on another TRUE democracy if they both hated each other - as long as the two nations had a direct vote with a majority deciding to declare war. Hopefully this whole argument will come to a close...as Korn put it in other words...It's only a game

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

	26-03-2000 10:16									#82
	Full PM-box? Change here!

on another note, the theory you are battling about may never be proven now that the Nuclear weapon is around. You have to take into account that more than one variable is present in diplomacy. Not only government type, but also the state of the world, and the level of destruction possible. A war between 1970 (30 years ago, I heard that has been a popular figure in this thread) and now and even into the future has been affected by the advent of Nuclear weapons. This has undoubtedly affected the democratic peace theory. But I still stand firm on my previous post. Democracy is defined in Political Science as direct vote by all citizens with majority rule. True democracies do not need any branches of government...no leader...no courts...and no legislative body. Just a way to tally the votes of the masses and let the majority rule. It simply doesn't exist

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

	03-04-2000 05:54									#83
	Increase Your PM Length

Ok, I admit, I forgot all about the nukes. silly me. the did affect the world. and they made the democratic peace appear more true than it is.

Also, if a true democracy is where everybody vote directly for a prez, than I can be proud that Israel is a democracy.

It's true though that in earlier times a democracy would vote for every decision. it kinda sucks. no one would work. everybody will just vote themselves to death.

am I being too gloomy?

btw the pride sin exists long before the catholic church. starting with the tower of babilon. also almost all other religions contain a pride sin. the pride sin is "common knowledge".

	06-04-2000 01:20									#84
	Tired of ads?

Dear Imran Siddiqui,

The academic debate (as opposed to the invective) has been very interesting. I just two questions for you. The Economist recently did an article on democratic peace theory that questioned if the theory was not overdone somewhat. The two counter-examples they gave were the Boer War (UK - Boer Republics) and the U.S. civil war. Why do these not cast some doubt upon the theory?

The second question is as following: If you define "democracy" too restrictively, don't you run the risk of undercutting the explanative power of the theory altogether, i.e. you get to the point where no country, even today, can be said to be a "true" democracy. If this has some merit, then the theory is neither true nor untrue, as it is unable to be tested at the present time

	06-04-2000 08:25									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

First I guess I would like to say that I am kind of disgusted by this post. I wanted to comment on the first couple posts but then I had to read through all the name calling and well religious intolerance (on both sides). I guess than before I can post I have to give a type of disclaimer: first I am not a political science major and while I found all that interesting, most of it was over my head, second I am a Christian but find the forced religion that CivNation was talking about garbage. It is like the crusades or Muslims who forced nations at sword point to become Islamic.

Anyway, that said. UN Democratic relations should not happen until the UN is built and the majority of the world is democratic. Until then diplomacy should happen as it did in history. You did not have international votes (at least to my knowledge) instead you had one nation trading land, riches, women, etc. for something else. Also dominant nations in military were able to march up to their neighbors and say give me your land or you are toast. Khan and the Mongols were so dominant militarily that nations begged for them to rule over them and protect (at least that is what my history teacher once told me, but she wasn't a good teacher so take what I say with a grain of salt).

	06-11-2000 10:03									#86
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Imran,
I think both India and Pakistan had democratically elected governments when they fought in 1971 and certainly had elected governments when they fought a couple of years ago. It depends on how you define democracy I suppose.


If there are vicious ethnic or religious rivalries democracy is no gurantee for peace because public opinion itself will be baying for blood at least for a while. For instance I find it quite plausible that if the Arab countries had popularly elected governments the resulting regimes (which would likely be Islamist)would be more not less bellicose towards Israel.

Actually I find the free-trade hypothesis quite plausible because free trade means there will be a powerful business constituency which will try to prevent war. Of course as WW1 shows this isn't a complete guarantee either but I think it pushes countries in the right direction.

	06-11-2000 10:14									#87
	Suffering from ads?

Whoa, blast from the past...

Answering some questions:

Boer War involved a British democracy, but I don't think there is any way that the Boers could be called a Democracy!

The Civil War - The South was NOT a democracy. Let's see, they only were in existance for 4 years (so there was no peaceful transfer of power), and the only elections they had was the first one.

India/Pakistan. In 1971, Zia-ul-Haq ruled Pakistan, a dictator. And a war a couple years ago? I don't think so... maybe a minor conflict.

Arab nations would urge more negotiation than war if they were democracies. See the example of Egypt.

Free-trade is bunk. WW1 proves it is wrong, as does WW2 (both times Germany and France were #1 trading partners).

	06-11-2000 11:24									#88
	Suffering from ads?

"Whoa, blast from the past..."
Hehe.I didn't realize this was a 6 month old thread. Mtg linked it one of the OT threads and I thought it was a current discussion.I forgot that most of the other forums on Apolyton are half-dead anyway.


Anyway Zia came later in the decade. The president at the time of the 1971 war was Yahya Khan who was a military man. However the 71 war was caused by the results of the election a few months before where the Awami League won big in East Pakistan and wanted autonomy in all matters except foreign policy. After the war Bhutto who had won the election in West Pakistan became the leader. Anyway regardless of whether Pakistan was technically a democracy or not it was an election which caused the crisis.

The 99 affair could be considered a minor war ; it's a matter of definition. Anyway what stopped it from becoming a major war wasn't any kind of democratic restraint but the reality of a possible nuclear confrontation and the diplomatic intervention of the US neither of which had anything to do with the two countries having democratically elected governments.


About free trade I think you are confusing it with plain trade. The point isn't just that countries which trade with each other won't ever go to war but more to do with countries which have accepted the free trade philosophy and the necessity and advantages of economic interdependence. Mid-victorian England came pretty close to having this kind of free-trade philosophy but not AFAIK either Germany or France in 1914 or 1939.Two mercantilist countries might go to war with each other even though they trade a lot because they consider trade as a kind of zero-sum game.
[This message has been edited by Kautilya (edited November 06, 2000).]

	06-11-2000 12:37									#89
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Ahhh... I see your point... But embracing free trade also (usually) means other liberal arguments, like democracy.

Did MtG like to this to show CivNation's horriblness?

edit: I don't think a full scale war would have developed in 1999 under Democracies, but I think you forget that by that time Musharrif already seized power.
[This message has been edited by Imran Siddiqui (edited November 06, 2000).]

	07-11-2000 04:57									#90
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"Did MtG like to this to show CivNation's horriblness?"
Yes, exactly.

"but I
think you forget that by that time Musharrif already seized power."
No Musharraf came a few months later. Nawaz Sharif was Prime Minister at the time.

I am not sure the total no. of battle deaths was 1000 but it was probably close if you count both sides. Even without a major war if the fighting had continued at the same level of intensity for a few more weeks the total would easily have gone over 1000.