Slashdot Mirror

I thoroughly agree that the book is figurative, but my best reading of it is by Dr Paul Barnett, a Sydney Anglican reformed evangelical, whose commentary is titled "Apocalypse now and then". So while figuratively describing historical events as they were unfolding back then, the book also applies as a general warning to all Christians in all ages —I think you were basically describing this in your own terms.

In these particulars, I thought the beast was figurative language for Nero, and that the book stands as a warning to us that any time governments set themselves against God's people anywhere throughout history, they were a 'beast'?

"...and that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark or the name of the beast or the number of his name." That sounds like more than a figurative remark about our attitudes, but a particular form of persecution in a particular historical period, as an example for all Christians in all ages to be aware of mindlessly following the godless leaders of the day. It does not imply any form of body coding / chip implanting is automatically 'wrong', but does imply where our ultimate loyalties are, and how we have to be mindful of these matters.

Basically, I think we agree on the basics, and that Revelation should not be read as a 'timetable of future history'. Movies like the Omen have done more to affect how modern Christians read that part of the bible than I think the average church-goer admits.

And how, exactly, is PBS not neutral?

They're biased in favor of the truth, maybe? And the truth, as we all know, has a well-known liberal bias? : - )

Actually, PBS does lean a little to the Left/Liberal side. But the people who get all bent out of shape about that are really complaining because it isn't heavily Right-Wing/Conservative. They can't understand how a straightforward presentation of the facts doesn't, and won't, and can't, always, and in every case, support the way they see things, so when it doesn't, they're sure it's a Godless Commie conspiracy.

The slashdot summary comes from people who desperately, desperately need to make their case for a godless universe. They think they might have a friend in Plato. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

What an amazingly vacuous post. Thanks for that.

The slashdot summary comes from people who desperately, desperately need to make their case for a godless universe. They think they might have a friend in Plato. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

oh, so apparently now it's just fine to get your facts out of a 2,000-year-old book?

Next thing, you godless eggheads will want to be teaching this Plato in our nation's schools. You people won't stop until every first grader in America has sacrificed a goat to the Pythagorean principle.

So what? It doesn't have like a soul and stuff, man!

The decentralization aspect isn't there to keep everyone's kumbaya mp3s flowing freely. It's there to keep it working if part of it gets nuked by them thar godless commie bastards.

You were doing all right till you implied liberals defend fundamentalist Muslim outrage. I thought we were the Godless Atheist Commies -- suddenly we're supposed to defend not only religious stupidity, but extremist religious stupidity?

Note to conservatives: just because you hate two different groups doesn't put them on a team together.

According to some accounts it was Nancy's astrologer's hand.

Pisces is in Jupiter and the moon is in its rising quarter. An ideal time for launching nucular missiles at the godless commies!

Actually, "Godless science" is mildly inaccurate.

No, it's not.

YOU are inaccurate, Mr Anonymous.

You mention the Islamic Golden Age.

That has as much in common with modern science as phlogiston does.

There is no phlogiston in fire, and there is no God in physics.

It's obvious that you wrote anonymously because you can't be bothered to stand up for your views.

You dumb shit.

--
BMO

As if all the wrongs of mankind can be layed at the feet of religion.

All? Certainly not. A great multitude of wrongs certainly can be traced to religion without any question on the matter. Numerous past and ongoing examples of wars, torture, terrorism, bigotry, genocide, and more are so frequent as to cause despair.

As if, if there were godless people, they wouldn't just find another belief system or philosophy to justify doing the same things.

Perhaps but at least it wouldn't be because of mythology.

As if all the wrongs of mankind can be layed at the feet of religion.

As if, if there were godless people, they wouldn't just find another belief system or philosophy to justify doing the same things.

Actually, "Godless science" is mildly inaccurate. You seemed to have left out several HUGE advancements in many sciences and fields, such as medicine, that were the product of the Islamic Golden Age. And guess what? In their texts, right next to their theories and discoveries, there were also references to God and religion. Without some of these advancements, your European scientists would never have advanced as far as they did. We STILL use some of the tools and methods in medicine that they developed way back then. So, don't be so arrogant. Science and religion can go hand in hand.

P.S. Back to the 12th Century? You mean, right in the middle of the Islamic Golden Age? I wish we could travel back to that period, just so you'd learn a little about where your "Godless Science" came from.

Are you sure? You're essentially arguing "because we're modern, reasonable, and respectable while they're just backward hicks" without anything to back the assumptions.

Here's a tougher one. How did you feel about the U.S. holding Dmitry Sklyarov?

Can a country whose courts have effectively sentenced people to permanent poverty because their kid shared a few songs REALLY lay any claims to justice or reasonability?

From the Pakistani standpoing we're a greedy godless rabble.

Perhaps it's best if we can all agree that people can't reasonably be held responsible for laws in other jurisdictions and that crimes take place where the person IS when the act is committed (if the act is even criminal there).

A creationist stands on his hind legs and says thusly:

look at the evidence honestly.

I've debated with Young Earth Creationists such as yourself.

Newtonian physics doesn't mention God. Relativistic physics doesn't invoke God. Maxwell's equations don't involve God. Astronomy doesn't involve God. Electronics theory doesn't involve God. None of the sciences involve God. The biological sciences don't invoke God. Medicine doesn't invoke God. But Creationists such as yourself have no problem benefiting from the results of such science and the technology it helps create.

It's more productive talking to a toothbrush. I'm tired of people such as yourself trying to drag us all back to the 12'th century with regards to knowledge. I've heard it for most of my 44 years on this planet.

No. You're willfully stupid. Go away. And stop using all that Godless science and technology you rely on every day to get through modern life.

Hypocrite.

--
BMO

Don't get me wrong, I fully think the Soviets are to blame for spoiling a hundred years of hard work by the Afghanis.

The USSR was fighting radical Islamic extremism. The more secular Marxist government of Afghanistan requested Soviet help to fend off attacks by radical Muslims. This has been further advanced by the declassification of many internal Soviet era documents.

The CIA, with several hundred billion dollars of US Taxpayer and Saudi money, radicalized the "freedom fighters" -- now called "insurgents" -- and armed a good number of jihadists from around the globe. Internally this was described as "giving the Soviet Union their own Vietnam."

As soon as the last Russian soldier left, so did we. The radical muslims who were left fought over the scraps, and eventually the Taliban became the dominant force. Even though they imposed a disgraceful form of violent religious intolerance, it was welcomed in the vacuum of decades of warlords trying to destroy each other.

Almost all of the misery in the middle east can be directly traced to Western powers attempting to divide and control and conquer the region to exploit their geographical importance and natural resources. Making Iraq a country nearly equal in land controlled by Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis was not a mistake. Supporting murderous thugs and dictators who could control their populations was also not a mistake. Arming violent madmen who wanted to rid the world of Godless Atheists was also not a mistake.

All of those decisions, however, do carry consequences. And consequences that the Average Joe seems incapable of understanding, let alone accepting. The real lesson is this: leave sovereign nations alone. If you have made yourself dependent on their resources, then you have only yourself to blame. Get rid of the need, or play by their rules. Otherwise you are just another nation-state wallowing in moral hypocrisy.

I hate to bring this up because it's off topic. But Hitler was Catholic. He went to church, was backed by the Vatican and mentions doing Gods work in Mein Kampf. You can't disown him from your belief system because he was a cunt.

Hilter was raised Catholic, but by the time he entered politics there is little evidence he was a devout follower of any religion. For example, quite a few major Nazis where deeply into Neo-Paganism, not exactly something you'd expect a Catholic zealot to abide in his political organization. It's most likely he was a power-monger who cynically used mainline Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant) terms to make him more popular with the existing social order and German people of that time. Remember his party's earliest political adversaries were the "godless Bolsheviks".

All of which is beside the point because this article isn't about "religion is bad" it's about "murderous extremists are bad". The current culture of the middle east just happens to foster a religious culture predisposed to extremism.

True, but regardless of their original intend a rather vocal faction on Slashdot routinely likes to make articles like this as "proof" all religions are bad.

I've noticed this too, but after having a conversation on the topic with most of them (barring the far extremes, i.e. the ultra-religious, and the "women are special goddess things" camps) it generally becomes clear that most people find the idea of abortion distasteful, and most people's views are somewhere in the middle, though all fall into one camp or another depending on how they weigh certain aspects of the issue. The aspects are generally the same.

It is a very fun topic to discuss once you get beyond the whole "twitch" reflex that people have developed. People seem to first provide a strong front for or against it, because they are so used to being attacked for their views (any view), then they move on to actual rational discussion once you show that your not attacking their opinions, but just exploring and discussing with no motive of changing their point of view.

This twitch reflex is very common on all hot-button issues. A current example is the immigration debate, with one side appearing almost racist, and the other appearing as pro-immigration (and political correctness) at any cost. If this twitch reflex was removed, useful debate would be ressurected and the world (America specifically, being that we seem to have a particular dearth of this talent at the moment) be a better place. But sadly attack politics is so normal, that I doubt it is possible to be truly open on your views.

If I stood up and said I am for or against (abortion | gun control | illegal immigration | war | taxes), there would be cavalcade of of comments throwing ad hominems and automatically classifying my statement to an extremist point of view, and thus not worth listening too.

Generally, if you are for abortion you are a godless person with no value on life, if you are against you are a religious extremist. If you are for gun control you are a commie bastard who wants a police state, if you are against you are some sort of right wing militia member, if you are against illegal immigration you are a racist (just like if you disagree with Israel ymiou are a Nazi anti-Semite), if you are for you are a anti-american follower of the cult of political correctness. If you are for our wars you are a war-mongering neo-con who believes that America should rule the world, if you are against you are a pacifistic commie. If you are against taxes you are a Libertarian lunatic-fringeman, and if you are for you want a nannie state and adhere to communist principles.

These ad hominems do nothing but silence debate, and squash the vast, silent, middle. Sadly they are very effective, and because of such almost ubiquitous. As a result our politics have become a vast sideshow of extremes. Even the "Fair and Balanced" idea is dripping with this idiocy, since it claims that all view are represented, but somehow completely excludes the middle, favoring only the two ideological extremes.

These extremes cancel each other out, and leave absolutely nothing, just random noise and chaos.

Sorry but any country whose citizens routinely describe it as "the best country in the world" while having - as per your own post - exactly ZERO grounds for comparison IS arrogant (to say the least).

If I called my wife the 'most beautiful woman in the world', would I also induce such ire?

I guess you guys haven't discovered hyperbole yet, but you really ought to look into it.

Your post goes on to claim that France no longer thinks it is superior to the rest of us. Ditto England. Dude, seriously. France won't even allow the word 'e-mail', and England still has a QUEEN, and we're the backwards barbarians. Bias, bias, bias.

Because it's the exact same rhetoric. We are the chosen nation of god. The flame of liberty. The free and the fair and everybody else is godless communists and muslims and faggots.

Now this is close to true. There are a lot of people in my country that feel this way. Though, in the fairest assessment, I'll wager that are a lot in your own as well. Or in China, or Korea, or probably just about every place on the planet. "We are better" is an entirely human emotion that was not invented in the US. Sorry if that cuts back on your hate-fuel, but there it is.

Wouldn't it be great if, just for once, the most powerful nation around actually learned something from history, and used an approach and attitude toward the rest of the world that was devoid of such arrogance and self-superiority and perhaps didn't have to end up like the previous ones ... perhaps didn't end up hated by every other nation they had any dealings with ?

Sure it would, but it would also be impossible. You can't be the 'most powerful' without being hated. It simply doesn't work that way, for a whole bevy of reasons that I'm sure you already grasp.

In that light, no, maybe it wouldn't be so great. After all, we'd be less human that way, and maybe it isn't such a good idea to turn us all into blabbering wussies. Vive la différence!

Sorry but any country whose citizens routinely describe it as "the best country in the world" while having - as per your own post - exactly ZERO grounds for comparison IS arrogant (to say the least).

It is also exactly that same uninformed and uncritical nationalism that drives imperialism. It worked for France, then for England and now for you. Ultimately, like everybody else before you the only possible outcome is you eventually getting a major knock back and then discovering you were never all THAT great after all - and like everybody else who made the mistake before you - realizing that nationalism is a stupid philosophy that has in all of human history never been usefull for anything except an excuse for atrocity.
And believe me I know, the government that committed some of the worst atrocities in the history of my nation were even CALLED the Nationalist Party. For that matter, at risk of Godwin'ing myself, nationalism was a fundamental part of Hitler's philosophy as well...

Why do you think American nationalism (or patriotism as you prefer to call it- but seriously, the words are exact synonyms) is any different ? Why do you think people in South Africa hear your presidents' (yes, I was using it in the plural possessive so my apostrophe is correct, now shut up grammar nazis) speeches and are strangely reminded of H.F. Verwoerd, B.J. Vorster and P.W. Botha (hell the last one was utterly indistinguishable from G.W. Bush - they even had the same catch-phrase-like finger-in-the-air stance !).
Because it's the exact same rhetoric. We are the chosen nation of god. The flame of liberty. The free and the fair and everybody else is godless communists and muslims and faggots.

"We are the true human beings"... how much more tribal can you get ? You don't GET to be called a civilization until you stop thinking like a tribe, and certainly not until you stop being barbarians when it comes to how you treat every other country out there.

I speak with plenty of self-critique a large part of the current generation here hasn't even learned from the fall of nationalism in my country yet and long for the "Good old days"... but they are dying breed, the majority of us have realized that in embracing people regardless of culture, and making all cultures your own you become a fuller human being with more empathy, and kindness and importantly a more fullfilling life as your experiences in this world is not limited to the narrow scope of one worldview only.

I'm sorry, but those Americans who decry the situation your country speak from having studied history, and having seen other nations and THEIR histories and want to warn you not to repeat their mistakes. Well... it doesn't look like anybody's listening.

Wouldn't it be great if, just for once, the most powerful nation around actually learned something from history, and used an approach and attitude toward the rest of the world that was devoid of such arrogance and self-superiority and perhaps didn't have to end up like the previous ones ... perhaps didn't end up hated by every other nation they had any dealings with ?

My country was never the most powerful in the world but we were and are without a doubt the most powerful on our continent... we've been everybody's love-to-hate, now we're the country everybody else in Africa wishes they lived in (hence the one with the constant flood of illegal immigrants and refugees) - and the single most important element that changed to make this happen was to replace a nationalistic government with an all-embracing one (granted, that is often more true in theory than practise but it's at least a BETTER theory).

Just tell them that the rebels are godless communists and they'll happily bayonet babies till their arms are falling off - it's just a preemptive strike, right?