CassandraofTroy Philosopher

In 732 Abd-er-Rahman, Governor of Spain, crossed the Pyrenees at the head of an immense army, overcame Duke Eudes, and advanced as far as the Loire, pillaging and burning as he went. In October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe. It was this battle, it is said, that gave Charles his name, Martel (Tudites) "The Hammer", because of the merciless way in which he smote the enemy.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03629a.htm

In 732 Abd-er-Rahman, Governor of Spain, crossed the Pyrenees at the head of an immense army, overcame Duke Eudes, and advanced as far as the Loire, pillaging and burning as he went. In October, 732, Charles met Abd-er-Rahman outside of Tours and defeated and slew him in a battle (the Battle of Poitiers) which must ever remain one of the great events in the history of the world, as upon its issue depended whether Christian Civilization should continue or Islam prevail throughout Europe. It was this battle, it is said, that gave Charles his name, Martel (Tudites) "The Hammer", because of the merciless way in which he smote the enemy.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03629a.htm

I know he's not an American, but he's just so COOL! I never did celebrate Martin Luther King day, so since I have the day off school I'm going to replace him with Charles.

I expect a great deal of hate and outright nonsense on this one. Here is an excerpt from the Catholic side of the controversy from. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controv... Gallileo stepped outside the bounds of science and into the world of theology, which was none of his business. Let me quote.

"Many people wrongly believe Galileo proved heliocentricity. He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Keppler and Copernicus also proposed Heliocentricty. Why weren't they censured? The church at the time, employed noted astronomers and was not anti science. Read the article. I now await your hate.

I asked microsoft, and they sent me an email to call a 1-800 number. That's dumb. I need to know because I want to take some CD rom college credit and it has to be XP or newer. Thank You. Stupid answers will be deleted.

http://www.cornellsun.com/section/news/content/201...

Here is the article about it.

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy. While few philosophers would claim to be nihilists, nihilism is most often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche who argued that its corrosive effects would eventually destroy all moral, religious, and metaphysical convictions and precipitate the greatest crisis in human history. In the 20th century, nihilistic themes–epistemological failure, value destruction, and cosmic purposelessness–have preoccupied artists, social critics, and philosophers. Mid-century, for example, the existentialists helped popularize tenets of nihilism in their attempts to blunt its destructive potential. By the end of the century, existential despair as a response to nihilism gave way to an attitude of indifference, often associated with antifoundationalism.

Latin nihil, or nothing, which means not anything, that which does not exist. It appears in the verb “annihilate,” meaning to bring to nothing, to destroy completely. Early in the nineteenth century,

http://www.iep.utm.edu/nihilism/

Lady keeps sending me vmail protesting that I am harassing her son. I live alone and only use my c phone to call out in emergency or when away from home. NO ONE would be using my phone. I have a TCM (totalcallmobile) LG 150. I have her number. How can I block it?

You are presented with the soul of Tomika. I am not making this person up. Tomika has dealt drugs all her life, made some kids, lived on welfare and foodstamps and generally has been evil. Her children hate her and she says of herself "I'm not a family chick"

Recently Tomika, out of the "kindness" of her heart took in Heather and her two teenage daughters. Heather had been laid off her job and her husband had been in prison for a year. Tomika demanded that Heather turn over all her unemployment and feed Tomika and her every increasing brood of overnight visitors on Heather's food stamps. Heather had NO WHERE else to go. Heather's sister had already deprived Heather of some of her furniture and her stove. Tomika threatens to pimp Heather and her children if they do not pay Tomika what she demands. Heather is working a temp job hoping to get hired in and makes $8 an hour now. Heather almost fears the homeless shelter (full now) more than Tomika. Heather can neither eat nor sleep and is ready for a nervous breakdown.

Tomika stands before you and Heather is demanding justice from you, God. Should Tomika be punished? How? Is there any real justice in this universe and how will you, God deliver it?