Slashdot Mirror
Time Reporter "Can't Wait" To Justify Drone Strike On Julian Assange
First time accepted submitter Tuck News writes "A reporter for TIME Magazine sparked a Twitter war when he said that he 'can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange'. Michael Grunwald deleted his tweet after a follower argued that it would only encourage Assange supporters.Grunwald's employer distanced itself from the tweet, saying 'Michael Grunwald posted an offensive tweet from his personal Twitter account that is in no way representative of TIME's views.'"
Justifying a murder, or in this case glorifying murder by hoping to write a justification for it, must be hate speech.
Never heard of the guy before, doesn't sound as if he's published anything of value?
I hope Michael Grunwald gets to live a world someday where people cheer at firebombing people for non violent crimes they've not even been convicted of. I just hope I don't have to share it with him.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
It is the UK's responsibility to protect Foreign Embassy's and other diplomatic establishments that are located on UK soil.
The same goes for the US and foreign embassy's on US Soil.
This statement could clearly be viewed as 'insighting a case of terrorism'.
I wish the US would even consider extraditing a US Citizen on Terrorism Charges but they won't so it isn't even
worth trying.
Is anyone really surprised to see one kissing the drone emperors feet? When can a Nobel prize be revoked exactly?
and if you disagree with anything we reserve the right to shoot the F out of you
and this happened on the internets? Whats next? Pictures of scantly dressed women? We've got to do something soon!
Is this the start of something more serious?
Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
Al Qaeda reporter "can't wait" to justify drone strike on Barack Obama.
(Although that would make more sense as the commander in chief is an actual participant in this "War").
International "Everybody is an asshole"-Day" anyone? Effing boot-licking ignorant fascist's of all creeds gather and rejoice!
And we can't wait to justify Time firing him. A man having no respect for human live is not appropriate to work as a reporter.
A drone is an offensive weapon. So it's offensive per definition.
... always suck I suppose.
Anyway, if one is happy with bombing at will with no trial and anytime anywhere just wait until it happens in the other direction.
I know the US plan is to always beat everyone in any military arena but I wonder whatever you'll really have the man power and economy to do that in the future? Maybe if you start expanding more seriously.
US world pol^Wbullies.
Wait, what?
Snowden at least stands accused of treason. Assange faces rape-after-the-fact charges in one of the most misandrous countries on the planet. Where the fuck does a drone strike against the latter even become a topic open for discussion?
Make your case for Snowden, dude. I happen to consider him nothing short of a hero, but I can certainly appreciate the opposing POV. Assange ranks right up there with the Kardashians for his overall level of ego-vs-the-good-he-could-do.
Then again - Perhaps I have this backward. Yes, nuke Assange (and Rodman, and the Kardashians, etc) from orbit, so they stop trying to steal the spotlight from real discussions we need to have about security vs privacy vs basic human rights.
Wait, what?
Snowden at least stands accused of treason. Assange faces rape-after-the-fact charges in one of the most misandrous countries on the planet. Where the fuck does a drone strike against the latter even become a topic open for discussion?
Make your case for Snowden, dude. I happen to consider him nothing short of a hero, but I can certainly appreciate the opposing POV. Assange ranks right up there with the Kardashians for his overall level of ego-vs-the-good-he-could-do.
Then again - Perhaps I have this backward. Yes, nuke Assange (and Rodman, and the Kardashians, etc) from orbit, so they stop trying to steal the spotlight from real discussions we need to have about security vs privacy vs basic human rights.
Sir (I assume you're male, please forgive me if I guessed wrong), your last line appealed to me so much that I entirely forgot everything you said before it...I think it was the idea of nuking the Kardashians that made me blue screen with glee, especially in the hopes of bringing more real discourse to the public stage again.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
You can't be arrested for saying you thought 9/11 was a good idea. Fred Phelps claims 9/11 was God's punishment that America deserved because of its embrace of homosexuality, and he's within his rights to express that opinion.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
For every person you hate hard enough to wish a drone strike upon them...
Someone else in the world hates you just as much...
I can't wait for a drone strike on michael grunwald. That bastard is an anti american piece of shit.
As a former soldier, I find it ethically and morally reprehensible that Mr. Grunwald would advocate and look forward to someone's death. It's clear he has never taken a life, nor lived through the realities of conflict.
If anyone else were advocating the violent death of another, it would be a crime; perhaps it's time for some standards to be applied to all - right, left, far left (journalists). This behaviour is disgusting.
Realizing that someone had lied about using a condom is hardly a "rape-after-the-fact charge".
It was not merely offensive. It was incitement to murder.
By a journalist of an international publication.
On another journalist.
Who is being given asylum against prosecution.
Prosecution aimed at unraveling the sources to articles published by various newspapers and magazines.
Regardless of whatever stance or determination might be made about Assange, this is a descent into utter evil, when a so-called journalist incites people through a global medium to murder a whistleblower - basically the most courageous journalistic source on the face of the earth. Well, maybe we have a few of these people in existence now.
Incidentally, the Time readers poll in 2010 voted Assange the Time Person of the Year, though somehow (not enough guts on the editorial board, I guess?) that asshole Zuckerberg got the spot.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/12/13/julian-assange-readers-choice-for-times-person-of-the-year-2010/
Of course all of the above still is true even if you don't consider Assange a journalist. Even if you consider him an enemy combatant.
Journalists have lost all their backbone and principles but this takes it to a new ultra-low.
The other dumb bit is how Time said it was just an "offensive" tweet apparently.
If Time and other big media names want to survive in the networked media age, the only thing they have going for them is quality, journalistic integrity, and strong adherence to an ethically unassailable position of trust. Time and other major newspapers and news magazines should take a very strong stance against Grunwald.
I highly recommend a big lashing out at Time but all its competitors in the marketplace, who can have fun climbing all over themselves to be the first to tar and feather that ugly cretin.
A drone is an offensive weapon. So it's offensive per definition.
A drone is an unmanned aircraft. It's by itself not a weapon, let alone an offensive one. You can make it into one by arming it, but otherwise it is no more a weapon than a remote controlled toy aircraft is. Indeed, strictly speaking a remote controlled toy aircraft is a drone.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
But rest assured, if he said it was God's punishment 'cause he was angry with the US worshiping him in the wrong way and not the correct Sharia way, he'd have been silenced SO fast.
Bible thumping = good, Koran thumping = bad. I don't get the logic behind it, why is one mental illness ok while the other one is a nono.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The drone sent out to kill someone is armed. Stop trying to be rabulistic.
You know, like Abu Quatada.
You know, the dude who you've had extradited for SAYING that this shit should happen.
You can't be arrested for saying you thought 9/11 was a good idea. Fred Phelps claims 9/11 was God's punishment that America deserved because of its embrace of homosexuality, and he's within his rights to express that opinion.
I wonder if he also would still be free if instead he had claimed it were Allah's punishment for suppression of the Muslims ...
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Then again - Perhaps I have this backward. Yes, nuke Assange (and Rodman, and the Kardashians, etc) from orbit, so they stop trying to steal the spotlight from real discussions we need to have about security vs privacy vs basic human rights.
The bloody hell you're talking about? Assange was steering the discussion towards the illegal actions of the NSA, interview after interview after interview. I am not saying you've been not paying attention, I'm saying you've been sleeping under a 1000 ton granite rock.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
There it is. The classic, all time, full bore, scientifically confirmed explanation of what authoritarianism is.
Everyone has a little authoritarian in them, especially at the point of being "fed up" with others, where ever that is. Therefore, everyone needs to check themselves against it. True civil libertarians (non-Ron Paul types) excel us all in this capability and this makes them what they are.
Maybe there are very extreme circumstances in which some aspects of the civil society's foundations work against civil society. Lincoln thought he found some.
One thing we know, The doings of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden and Walter Binney and John Kiriakou and Walter Drake and all the rest of the people who acted in accordance with the values all Americans and the Founding Fathers were inculcated with do not represent those circumstances.
It's amazing to me how unsophisticated the response has been from the administration and by proxy the NSA itself. Presumably they have multiple, best-course-of-action for any eventuality all analyzed beforehand and mapped out. Is THIS response what they have on the books? IS this the best unlimited access to the nations best social and cultural thinkers can produce?
Maybe Assange acted with disregard to national security, he claims to have tried to vet the documents with the NSA and CIA and State Dept but they refused to engage him the way they would have WaPo or the Times. Who knows? Anyways, there's a lot conceptual space between THAT and being a drone worthy terrorist or a traitor. Ditto on down the line.
What's the lesson for us in this specific incident? For the sake of your career, don't drink and Twitter ? Read The Authoritarians at least once a year ? Perform a thorough, searching, honest and skeptical self examination of your values and actions at least as often as you get a haircut?
Why must you attack people with mental illnesses to get your point across? People who say shit like this (for example "conservatism is a mental illness") are saying that the people who they disagree with are as bad as the mentally ill. And that is a really fucked up thing to say (making a moral judgement on people that have mental illnesses). It is basically a way to leverage the stigma and taboo of admitting a mental illness as a way to attack somebody.
The bullshit questioning rubbish against Assange (no charge had been laid) is because he can't be handily moved into a US military prison without a few silly games being played due to the UK having a thing about the rule of law. It's a bit late to pretend that they are anything other than a pretext.
The depressing thing is these drone strikes are effectively the same thing as the car bomb in Washington DC that was used by the Chileans to kill off a political enemy some years back. That's what the US can turn into if it keeps going down this path. Don't get me wrong, it's a long path and the US has barely set foot on it while the Russians are happily running down it killing people with rare poisons as a calling card, but the path leads to the sort of horrors we associate with the worst bits of the third world.
What is wrong with America? Kill the messenger because nobody wants to face one (of too many) ugly truth about American "freedom?" What an insane place to live. Why not realize the power of truth and actively work to change whatever is wrong? Oops. Sorry. Too hard. Might require someone put down the video game controller and care about something more than just themselves... Character assassination. Yes. That's a far easier thing to implement in America. Real change will have to wait for future generations (like when people might actually wake up and realize that we're all in this together).
Like Baby Bush (aka: Commander Codpiece) said, "the Constitution is just a piece of paper."
...Then again - Perhaps I have this backward. Yes, nuke Assange (and Rodman, and the Kardashians, etc) from orbit, so they stop trying to steal the spotlight from real discussions we need to have about security vs privacy vs basic human rights.
Want me to show you a few ways how you can turn a remote controlled aircraft into a weapon without having to "weaponize" it at all?
You can literally turn EVERYTHING into a weapon, given creativity.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He didn't lie about the condom: he SAID he wasn't wearing one.
SHE lied about one being deliberately ripped when it was shown not only not to contain any evidence of being worn by JA but also never to have been used before.
Most Americans are Christians. That's why. Or maybe you were being rhetorical.
Incidentally, you are right. If one uses one's right to express opinions that are too unpopular (though perfectly legal) one gets punished, for example Ward Churchill lost his job for daring to say that America might have done a few things bad enough to piss off people enough that they would attack us.
How do you have to take someone else's word about using a condom? It's pretty easy to verify yourself. Not mention it feels completely different for both the man and the woman.
"Let's see how the population reacts, if they just shrug to it, let's see how much else we can get away with. If it causes an outcry, we can always say it was the idea of a solitary lunatic"
It's not like it would be the first time...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
bullshit. Comparing someone with certain thoughts to someone who has a mental illness, is equating those certain thoughts to a mental illness. It's got nothing personal to do with people suffering from a mental illness. You gotta be insane not to understand that.
Utter nonsense. People in the US have said that 9/12 was justified, that the US did this to itself, that the Israelis did, that Al Qaeda should be applauded and so on. They weren't so much as charged with a crime, because guess what it's not a crime to be an asshole in the US. Here's one example:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/05/ohio-muslim-leader-says-911-planned-by-americans-praises-al-qaeda-linked-yemenite-sheikh.html
I think it was the idea of nuking the Kardashians that made me blue screen with glee, especially in the hopes of bringing more real discourse to the public stage again.
Sounds like you have a Kickstarter project there, dude.
Personally I'd go for Justin Bieber. But only if no innocent, bystander monkeys are hurt in the process.
Yes he would be. People have said just that. It's not at all illegal to say awful things in the US.
Python
who really cares?
Maybe because conservatism is a mental illness? As is liberalism? The truth is always nuanced and in the middle somewhere. It's called rationality and the way that the universe works, convergence to the mean. There's no way to change that.
Those that stray to the extremes of an ideology are inherently not rational. Why shouldn't that be classified as a mental illness?
So it seems that Time has gone to only hiring minimum wage reporters now, Did they pick this guy from a local restaurant that was their waiter?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Maybe the hypothetical drone strike is suitable punishment for jumping bail in the UK?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Becuase like religious fervor most people accept it as reasonable.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Assange faces rape-after-the-fact charges in one of the most misandrous countries on the planet. Where the fuck does a drone strike against the latter even become a topic open for discussion?
Wherever American conservatives gather in sufficient numbers.
Why must you attack shit that is excreted from bovines to get your point across?
Nice straw man argument. So you hate religion and have access to a computer. You must be a joy to work with, assuming you have a job.
Ward Churchill did lose his job, but there is no Constitutional right to have a particular job. If you say McDonald's meat sucks, that's your constitutional right, but if McDonald's fires you over it, you can't really do anything about it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Maybe he meant it in the way so that he'd get paid just to write "It can't be justified."
rewriting history since 2109
My apologies. What is the currently accepted politically correct term for someone who has an invisible friend and follows his orders?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually yes, in general my coworkers consider me level headed and fair. Then again, my coworkers tend to be above average in intelligence, simply due to the kind of work they have to accomplish.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He must be a huge asshole. And a horrible human being. Why isn't he already working for Fox?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Any illness requires a pathology. An idea or a belief is not pathological unless it causes significant distress or impairment in functioning (social, work, personal, etc.). Children who believe in the tooth fairy or Santa don't have mental illnesses. People who are communists don't have mental illnesses. Nor do religious people. The point it becomes a mental illness is the point where you can't function or are in too much pain. Believing you have the Holy Ghost inside of you doesn't do that, but believing you are covered in bedbugs will cause significant distress. And believing that you are always followed and snooped on will impair your ability to function.
A mental illness isn't a judgement, it is a need to fix a behavior that is causing distress or inability to function. Political beliefs don't do that. The Nazis weren't mentally ill--not even the ones in the death camps. What so many people forget is that a mental illness is not distorted thinking--it is pathological thinking.
To translate Michael Grunwald, what he really meant was, "I for one welcome our new insect overlords!"
Using a broad definition of mental illness, it's fair to say mentally retarded people and people with Alzheimers, schizophrenics, people with brain injuriies, bipolar and depressed people and autistics, narcissists and psychopaths are all mentally ill and none of them has cause to find the others included in that broad category.
But including a poltical outlook in that category is questionable for several reasons. I think it's possible for a person to be conservative because of a mental illness, but the evidence for it being typically learned and culturally reinforced is massive.
Don't get me wrong, it's a long path and the US has barely set foot on it (..)
"Barely set foot on it" ?!? The US government is murdering people without due process, trial or anything on a regular basis. Without a declaration of war involved. Violating other countries' sovereignty whenever it's convenient and/or 'doable'. Locking people up indefinitely without those prisoners having access to lawyers, a date for their trial, etc. Mass spying on their own citizens, in violation of its own constitution. Guys heading those 3-letter agencies lying about it to the public - but still stay in office. Silencing critics using a claim of "national security", together with gag orders issued by a secret court, or referring to a secret law.
Really, the only step missing is a dictator that rigs an election or sets aside democratic institions. Other than that, the US is a long way down the drain already.
The term for your above statement is hyperbole. You know as well as I do that religious beliefs come in a spectrum, where most people consider them something as general guidance. In this sense, a religion is more a philosophy. In the extreme cases, it is considered a binding ethical doctrine.
When you hear the words "mental illness" think distress and disability. Repeat that, distress and disability. Distress and disability. In a very real sense, a mental illness is a medical condition which is treated to reduce distress and disability. It is not a judgement. Imaginary friends do not mean that you have a mental illness. Nor does talking to yourself or an imaginary friend. When those imaginary friends cause distress or disability, then that is a mental illness. And for 99% of religious people, this does not apply.
Ward Churchill was brought to public attention because of making controversial comments, but the University defended his right to make whatever controversial opinion comments he wanted. He was fired for academic research misconduct including plagiarism and falsification of evidence.
Many regard the trial that ensued as a vindication of Churchill's conduct. It was not that. He alleged and the jury believed that his firing would not have occurred if he hadn't also made unpopular political comments. But they did not consider whether or not he had engaged in the misconduct which in fact he had. He plagiarized parts of his work and outright made up evidence to support his thesis of an intentional use of smallpox in the genocides of American Indian tribes. Whether or not he would have been fired for such offenses, had his poltical comments about 9/11 not been inflammatory, he should have been fired for such misconduct. It is the professor's job to teach by his own example how to do academic research, and he was a bad example.
SWAT team raids for petty offences
The police holding kids for ransom
I mean F it. Why don't we wear burkas and execute women drivers while we are at it. Shit.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, religion destroys spirituality
The levels of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance in conservatives who fell from grace cannot be healthy. Especially when their career and marriage ends publicly. Does that not qualify as pathological?
However, telling inconvenient thruths seems to be illegal there. Even if you're not American and don't even live there (Assange).
Somehow I'd doubt the US would commit an international incident to get one guy.
To my knowledge, the US doesn't have ad-hoc military access to Russian airspace. To say nothing of the loss of life for what would at that point be an extrajudicial killing (aka - murder).
When I read the tweet at first, I thought it could be interpreted as sarcasm. As in: "A drone strike is inevitable, and I'm going to have to be one of the guys who justifies it to the public. Great... I can't wait for that."
But then I read his reason for deleting the tweet (in agreement with tweeter rober1236Jua), and it seems more clear that Michael Grunwald really is looking forward to the murder of Assange because he obviously has a problem with him and his supporters:
Fair point. I'll delete. @rober1236Jua my main problem with this is it gives Assange supporters a nice safe persecution complex to hide in
How can you call for someone's murder and simultaneously accuse them of having a persecution complex? It's akin to Orwellian doublethink.
Grunwald and rober1236Jua are both sickening.
Snowden at least stands accused of treason.
Nope. He stands accused of espionage, but that's bullshit, too. Treason has a very specific definition in US law, and whistleblowing isn't making war on the United States.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The most "misandrous" country? That's a "victim" word if I've ever seen one - right up there with misogynist.
Reference for your view? ... Man haters ... All 0.4% of them...
Note: Swedish man tax was overthrown in 2004. Over the last 8 years in Sweden, the feminist political group got between 0.4% and 2% of the votes
So unless you've got some real evidence, STFU... And I'd say the same to a feminist ... Most feminists (particularly those that use the victim card) need to be told to STFU too.
I see no issue wishing a drone strike against this traitor. Ass-ange thought it was his own justification for what he has done. In my opinion that makes him a traitor and should be either hung or shot by a firing squad then dumped in the ocean. This is what use to be done to traitors. Not some BS political trial, which is just wasting more money.
You cant be a traitor to a country you hold no allegiance to.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Next thing you know, he will volunteer as a human bomb to punish Assange, I bet.
you're a retard and a liar
I see...so anyone who disagrees with you must not be intelligent.
That makes you just as bad, if not worse, than the people you're complaining about.
Hypocrite.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Babysitting? Didn't know that required such a high level of smarts.
"Believer" is the correct term for someone who has an invisible friend and follows the orders of other humans who claim to represent that friend.
The orders are coming from humans. As are the moral instructions, values admonitions, consolations, and promises for the future. The money offered up to the invisible friend is also going to humans, and quite a lot of that gets distributed to poor humans out of altruism (the rest gets kept, of course, by the agents of the invisible friend).
So, that makes the situation of a believer very different from the situation of, say, a schizophrenic, who takes orders from a hallucination (which may appear to be like another human, but is NOT another human, because it is in fact a figment of the schizophrenic's imagination).
So, there is your word and why the word you would like to use does not fit.
Wow, very good, it really lifts your post!
Any suggestions how we should refer to Obama?
"You cant be a traitor to a country you hold no allegiance to." stop being reasonable, you think words have meanings
Do other countries get to drone strike random people in the US now that we're doing it to other countries? 'can't wait to write a defense of the drone strike that takes out Obama'.
I'm religious because I think the advice in the Sermon on the Mount is generally good advice.
I'm religious because the parable of the good Samaritan was spoken two thousand years ago and a lot of people still aren't with it. Until people realise that the person who would help you in a pinch is your neighbor and the blood relative who wouldn't is not, we have a whole bunch of people who are more than 2,000 years behind on the news. Yes, there are older books that say much the same, and it shows up in Indian traditions, arts of Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and so on. I've read a lot of them and like the idea there just as much.
I'm religious because 'sin' really does look like it's 100% omnipresent in human beings of normal mental capacity, over about the age of 2 1/2 at best, and I think that things that are absolutely, always, 100% fundamental phenomina for a certain class of entities need an especially deep and appropriate explanation, in the same way that the problem of black-body radiation was a strong clue to the way things work in physics and I'm glad Max Planck followed through on that. I don't particularly claim to be a Christian, or not just one, but one area where I particularly respect the mainstream Christian churches is they have taken the fact that EVERYONE of normally sound mind fails to live up to the best within them, has quite justified regrets and moral failings and can't always keep their promises, even ones they make to themselves, and realized that says something quite fundamental about reality.
I'm religious because St. Paul gave a good evidence based argument for belief in life after death in Corinthians and why people's faith should be based on such evidence and how he wouldn't advocate such a radical thing as life after death upon just blind faith. Yeah, I know the bible doesn't always live up to such a standard, and Paul himself didn't always say things I agree with or admire and could really be a bit of a jerk sometimes, but that argument stands even now and people have debated and elaborated it for 2,000 years, and I still haven't heard anybody logically refute it.
I'm religious because there's a mathematical proof of the existence of God, by Kurt Godel none-the-less, and his math looks good.
I'm spiritual because of personal experience, and that exceeds any particular religious practice. If you haven't had Gnosis, go ahead and be an Agnostic, it really won't hurt anything, least of all yourself.
Who is John Cabal?
People write stupid things like this on the internet all the time. The only difference is that the latest big message board sites use people's actual names. I dumped facebook after trying it out for a little bit, and never bothered with twitter. I prefer to anonymously post my drivel on a quality board like this. If you have never posted something dumb, good for you. Still, there is no real need to get excited and upset over the opinions of a fool. As far as I can tell there are about 7 billion of them wandering about the planet.
I say this reporter has a dinky weiner and he smells bad.
Whoops! I meant to say "traditions, texts, and even the art of ..." While there are a few paintings and such from Hindu belief systems and the like that cover subjects similar to the parable of the Good Samaritan, it shows up a lot more in texts, and in some traditions where representitive art isn't allowed, texts are the only place to find it.
Who is John Cabal?
Fervently believing that a book, written by men, is the undeniable word of God, should be considered mental illness.
Good-bye
Had this been an offensive tweet from the Conservative position, he would have been fired immediately, even though he did it from his personal Twitter account.
But, because it's an ultra-Leftist tweet, he gets to keep his job and Time conveniently distances itself, noting he did it from his personal Twitter account.
Nobody in the media will ever lose their jobs for defending Obama's love for murdering people with drones.
I stopped taking Time magazine seriously when they had Ben Bernanke as Person of the Year.
> Assange faces rape-after-the-fact charges in one of the most misandrous countries on the planet. Where the fuck does a drone strike against the latter even become a topic open for discussion?
'Murrca, Fuck Yeah!!
Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
Button, Button (The Twilight Zone)
I think of this when I consider the whole concept of drones as used to murder inconvenient individuals.
Some day, someone else who does not see you as fully human will have control over the box.
If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
I see no issue wishing a drone strike against this traitor.
Assange is not American, therefore your claim that Assange is a traitor has no basis in fact.
Given the poor quality of your writing and reasoning , it is glaringly obvious you are an uneducated
idiot, so you need to go hang out on Craigslist Rants & Raves where you will find more of your kind.
I'm religious because St. Paul gave a good evidence based argument for belief in life after death in Corinthians and why people's faith should be based on such evidence and how he wouldn't advocate such a radical thing as life after death upon just blind faith.
Interesting. That's not what I've heard. I heard that St Paul believed "because it's absurd." Can you explain?
Stick Men
I'm religious because St. Paul gave a good evidence based argument for belief in life after death in Corinthians
Whatever Paul's argument for the afterlife is, it doesn't matter. Show me some evidence that supports his view! AFAIK, it doesn't exist!
Not being able to refute something doesn't make it a good thing to believe. Just try and refute my claim of an invisible miniature pony in my back yard...
I'm an atheist because I have seen no particular evidence which suggests that I should believe anything in the bible, let alone any other religious ideas of the super natural.
What about the about the advice in Leviticus that virtually all religious people hide from themselves?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
So you take parts that you like and ignore parts that you do not like? For that you do not have to be religious. You can do that without religion.
Here an interesting read: Even If I DID Believe ...
Part of the text below. Read it all on the link above.
If I had undeniable proof of the existence of Yahweh, aka Jehovah, aka Adonai, aka El Shaddai, aka Yahweh Elohim, the father of Jesus and the ancient leader of the Semitic peoples, I still would not worship the bastard. If an angel appeared to me and removed my appendectomy scar so I could never deny the reality of divine power, I still would not be a Christian. My primary reason for not being a Christian or Jew has nothing to do with my lack of belief in their god. My primary reason is that the Bible is a disgusting book describing the behavior of a god without the morality of an average high school student.
That God does what he wants, when he wants, without even an attempt at self-justification, and all for what reason? According to Paul, all for his own greater glory. Oh, how charming. For his own glory he condemns billions to eternal torment, drowns millions of innocent beasts and thousands of children, orders the slaughter of entire cities down to the last man, woman, and child, creates a race that he knows is flawed and will hurt itself (so that in their pain they can worship him better), refuses to deal with any other god on a friendly basis, restricts the normal expression of the sexual function, rains doom on those who dare to try to be as knowledgable as he is, and so on.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Wise?
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
After checking some of Grunwald's generally left-leaning articles (I didn't recognize the name), I think his comment proves you can't write satire anymore; you can not image a nut-fringe idea that is stupid or absurd enough that people won't believe it's real. E.g., Westover Baptist, TX Gov. Perry, ...
I would assume Fred Phelps' coworkers consider him level headed and fair.
Your idea of classifying members of a belief group as deluded is an old one. In fact, it's been used a good bit by those you're applying it to right now. Many religions have tales that justify all manner of things being done to those who have "incorrect" knowledge or beliefs. The parable of the burning house in Mahayanna Buddhism, for example. You can supply appropriate ones for Islam and Christianity (left as an exercise for the reader).
History has seen people confined in mental hospitals or the equivalent for all sorts of beliefs. Failure to see the wisdom and truth of Marxism-Leninism was one reason seen in the last century. Failure to see the wisdom and truth of any of many religions has been a reason for far longer. Roughly as long as having the the wrong political beliefs.
The problem with just dismissing that is, sometimes treatment as an illness justified. Sometimes not. Someone who loudly professed loyalty to the death to the German Kaiser might not have qualified during WWI. They might well if they did it as their sole activity today. This is one of the reasons that widely held beliefs are not usually considered evidence of mental illness in an individual without other factors. Atypical ones might be.
So, your idea has a long and sordid past and has been heavily used by the very people you're classifying as crazy.
That should give you some pause, but I kinda doubt it will. Those who go around proclaiming people who disagree with them are crazy are often not the most stable themselves. And usually they are utterly convinced of the rightness of their own beliefs. Sound familiar?
A drone is an unmanned aircraft. It's by itself not a weapon, let alone an offensive one. You can make it into one by arming it, but otherwise it is no more a weapon than a remote controlled toy aircraft is.
What if someone were to beat you to death with it? Would it be a weapon then?
Indeed, strictly speaking a remote controlled toy aircraft is a drone.
No, no it isn't. Drones have autonomy. A remote controlled toy aircraft is a remote controlled aircraft.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
A drone strike on a Foreign Embassy located in Britain will certainly give him a bigger challenge than he will be able to handle in his effort to justify.
I wonder if he also would still be free if instead he had claimed it were Allah's punishment for suppression of the Muslims ...
Of course he would. Where have you seen any evidence he wouldn't be? Base your beliefs on facts, not on biases.
So now you are saying the mentally ill cannot be intelligent?
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Uhhh...who says one is good? The west rightly so treat Phelps and the WBC as extremists no different than the Aryan brotherhood, its Islam where those same extremists are treated as mainstream, see the huge amount of mosques in the USA preaching "death to the infidels!" rhetoric.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
This sounds a bit like some reporter saying "Dammit, it's too boring around here today. I wish there was a grisly fatal multicar pileup so I could write something about it."
Then again, there's the old Hollywood idea that any hype is good hype for a career. Grunwald is certainly getting discussed more now than before this.
You must have drank the Reverend Billy Gates Koolaid if you Blue Screen with glee.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I'd love to see this, but not because I wish any harm on Assange (even though I personally think he's a douchebag of the highest order, that's not an offense worthy of capital punishment). No, I'd love to see the boot-lickers TRY to justify the unsanctioned murder of a foreign national on third-party soil. They would be so torn between their supposed progressive ideal of "we shouldn't police the world" and their unabashed devotion to Dear Leader that their heads would probably explode from the contradiction. I honestly don't think they'd know which way to spin it, and would end up just mumbling on air while looking like a deer in headlights.
In the end, they'd still try to justify it because they know it could be the rallying cry for the masses FINALLY waking up and booting every single one of these clowns out of office. If that happens, the media loses their biggest ally and would have to go back to actual journalism instead of repeating whatever the White House Press Office gives them...
Or maybe we'll just end up with more reality-tv tripe and things will continue on. Probably this, but I can dream, can't I?
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
I harbor a huge dislike of Assange, on the personal level. It's my gut reaction, and nothing I've learned about him moderates that. I would not want to spend one minute around him. He seems to be brimming over with shallow narcissism and pseudo-intellectualism. You nailed it with the equivalency to the Kardashians.
Doesn't mean he hasn't done some good, even if by accident. The aid he's given Snowden, for instance, is valuable. I like wikileaks in theory, and I like Snowden. I think Snowden did what he did because he truly wants to improve America, not out of insecurity and fragile egotism like Assange.
The only book-burning i support is the one of religious texts... Just imagine getting rid of all that shit..
Are you talking about Eliot Spitzer? Because Anthony Weiner is still married to Huma.
You mean like that guy that made a movie showing what the Koran says about the "dear prophet"? last I heard he was in jail, they found an excuse and used it.
Make NO mistake there ARE protected classes in the USA and if you piss off one of the protected classes you WILL get attacked, probably lose your job, maybe even go to jail.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Calm down, wipe the froth off your mouth. It's ok if you think you have an invisible sky daddy. Try to come to terms with the fact that there are intelligent people that have figured out that he isn't real.
I'm religious because St. Paul gave a good evidence based argument for belief in life after death in Corinthians and why people's faith should be based on such evidence and how he wouldn't advocate such a radical thing as life after death upon just blind faith.
If you're so sure that life after death exists, why don't you kill yourself
NOW and send us a postcard, you sanctimonious prick ?
Then there's this thing called consciousness.
Many try to us Occam's Razor to cut out God from this universe by saying based on our current understanding and knowledge our current universe does not "need" a God. But they could use the very same arguments to say that our current universe does not require humans to actually have consciousness - we could behave the exact same way we do without it (we could behave like self-aware creatures without that actual phenomena that we experience). And yet I know consciousness exists. Whether the rest of you are creatures capable of consciousness who really knows? I'd guess most of you are since I doubt I'm something really special.
Sure it could be a fluke, Weak Anthropic Principle etc but after a certain point Occam's Razor cuts both ways - the simplest explanation might be there's a God who created our universe that looks simple and yet complicated, beautiful and ugly depending on how you look at it.
You do know that the more educated people are the less religious they become?
And just to make it fair... Religious people, of most major religions, have persecuted non-believers for a really long time so why can't we make verbal arguments against it now? Just because we ridicule a religion we don't ridicule the people believing in it, except that it could be considered a metal illness.
I don't know about that as when Win 8 BSODs on a laptop at the shop I'm all gleeful as at least the damned thing isn't treating every touch of the damned trackpad as a fucking swipe and popping that charms shit up. I swear Win 8 ought to be called "Stop doing that!" as its what i hear from every customer who tries to show me what is "wrong" with their system.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I'm not entirely sure why anyone modded you insighful. Anyone paying a modest amount of attention would know you are full of shit. They built a mosq in the shadows of ground zero. The president is surrounded by Muslims who advise him on his middle east policy. For decades longer then 9/11 was around, Dearborn Michigan has had a largely Muslim population that regularly assaults and vilifies retarded Christians who think they need to say things to them. Hell, there is even videos on Youtube where they had rocks thrown at them and were physically assaulted and the cops told the Christian protesters to leave because they were causing problems spewing their speech.
Opportnist=ignorant and manipulatively deceptive
Is that really the case? I'm atheist myself, but I observe all the time how if you say something negative about islam, you'll get attacked by the PC police, but if you say something negative about christianity you get cheers. Case in point, the people on The View walked out on Bill O'Reilly when he made a rather mild comment about Islam, and Juan Williams being fired from NPR for doing something similar. Yet nobody ever got slammed in the media for shit talking the bible belt, let alone fired.
I'm not an O'Reilly fan nor do I really care for Juan Williams, but so far Islam is the only religion that has committed acts of mass terror, yet the liberal media is constantly at its defense.
Personally I'm neither a fan of christianity nor islam, but I'm tired of islam being treated like an ethnic minority that is in constant need of apologetics, especially given how barbaric islam is.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
So claiming a person is mentally ill because of their ideology and thoughts is not attempting to lower them to some subclass of humans less worthy or desirable than normal people like yourself because they lack the ability to mentally process and function as yourself?
I got ya now. Calling someone retarded is like calling them a dog or wolf or an animal which in no way infers they are less then human. Calling somoene mentally ill in no way infers that they are less then your ideal blue eyed blond hair super race right? Because all people are equal and it's just how they interact with you that makes them less of a person?>
and another between them know what injustice is.
Not all conservatives are religious and not all religious conservatives are of the same religion. Further, not all conservatives are conservative in everything they do and practice.
I hope that didn't shock your reality and cause some severe cognitive dissonance within your own self. You seem to be suffering the same mental process called stereotyping that has allowed racists to claim all blacks are drug pushing gangster wanna be's who thieve, kill, and lie because they met a couple like that at some point in time or saw it on the news.
IF we take this a step further, we can assume you are inclined to reference all conservatives as Christians but don't understand what that means. You see, Jesus was a neccesity because Man could not live up to the standards and laws God put to us. His entire premise is that he offers a way into God's grace and eternal salvation by sacrificing himself for our sins. All we have to do to get this is accept Jesus into our hearts and ask for forgiveness.
Now here is the important part. If the Chrisitan religion is developed around acknowledging that we cannot be perfect and need to ask for forgiveness from time to time, then why is someone screwing up their marriage supposed to be a sign of cognitive dissonance or pathological? I mean make peace with your maker, repent and move on. There is no problem at all if you understand what you seem to be railing again.
There's a very short distance between what he's advocating and the government-sanctioned murder of journalists, dissidents, conscientious objectors and whistleblowers.
Given that the DOJ is now going against companies that give classes in evading polygraph tests, I can only imagine the number of other things that will be made illegal over the next decade to serve the security state. And this guy seems to be a cheerleader for it.
That God does what he wants, when he wants, without even an attempt at self-justification, and all for what reason? According to Paul, all for his own greater glory.
Yes. He is perfection. He is the Alpha and Omega. If God were your equal, it would be hubris for Himself to want you to worship Him above all. But being all knowing, He knows that it's ultimately good for you to worship Him. So He wants that for you because He loves you.
The simplest explanation is, "That that is, is".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Fred Phelps is pure comedy. He thinks a giant sky monster cares so much about what two humans do under the sheets that he would kill a few other humans? Lol.
Because people are pissing their panties every time someone says something bad about Islam 'cause these loonies take the shit about paradise serious and blow themselves up in your face to get there. It's rather rare with Christians, who're usually great at praying, denouncing "sinners" and spending time in churches but rather reluctant to take jokes like "go forth and give everything your have to the poor" really serious.
Religion in the west is mostly a fun pastime. Something to do when you have no real problems, but it mustn't cut into your spending spree.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There is no invisible pony in your back yard, miniature or not. I have sent my invisible tigers to chase them all out. They told me they did a great job and even ate the invisible monkey that was taking care of them.
However, your invisible pony or my invisible tigers are a tad bit different then an after life or invisible God. What you are essentially saying is that if there is no evidence, then it didn't happen or you can't be assed into believing it ever happened.. However, we know this not to be the case in even recent events. A flood washed records away during hurricane Katrina. People's homes, their personal belonging, and sometimes their selves disappeared without a trace. Now, did they ever exist? There is no evidence they had existed outside someone saying what about the old man that lived on the corner? Is that person someone now a senseless believer? Is the person who believes there was an old man who lived on the corner based on the other person's statements but can't find any evidence of it a religious nutcase now? Should the cops not spend any time trying to locate this mythical missing person?
Now, you didn't go as far as I did with the believer and nutcase BS but my point is more that just because there is no evidence does not mean the truth hasn't be said. If you do not believe something to be true, fair enough. But often reality is a lot more close to the statements in truth then you making up something about an invisible animal.
At least type my name right in your rant. I know it's kinda hard to do that when you're brimming with rage, so please calm down, maybe we can reach a civil discussion that way.
What exactly is your point? If it helps you in any way, I consider EVERY religion a mental illness. I don't single out Islam or Christianity, as far as I'm concerned they are in the loony bin together.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Does he want children to starve to death because he loves them? Does he want people raped and murdered because he loves them? Did god make hemorrhagic fevers because he loves us? Did god order the Israelites to murder men, women, and children because he loved those men, women, and children? Oh that's right. That's all our fault somehow, and no matter what god decides to do to us for whatever reasons he chooses, it's all good and perfect because god is god Q.E.D. If god can't stand to be around his own creation because they chose to not do everything he wanted, he's not all powerful. The fact is, he can but would rather see us burn eternally than to spend time with someone told a white lie or talked back to their parents or ate a gdamn piece of fruit he arbitrarily decided they couldn't. Most Christians' vision of god is in no way moral. They are battered spouses in an abusive relationship that exists only in their own minds. Which would be fine on its own, but so many of them feel the need to push everyone into the same relationship both through emotional child abuse and legal means.
And yet you attempted to claim one message would be heard and the other silenced, one was good and the other bad. You are full of shit was my point. As for the typo in your name, I wasn't really trying to pay you with respect. It was accidental with no rage involve, but the sentiment remains true- ignorant - deceptive.
"What is the currently accepted politically correct term for someone who has an invisible friend and follows his orders?"
A believer in the Free Market (TM)
That doesn't shock anyone. They just don't want to hear it, because it makes it harder to dismiss everyone that disagrees with them.
While I can agree that at first glance, the God of the Old Testament seems a) completely different than the God of the new testament and b) seeming childish and evil by many current views of morality, some perspective makes it atleast more understandable, though potentially still disagreeable with some. The key distinction is that the Old Testament was effectively the proof that people, no matter what, left to their own devices are incapable of being perfect and not causing harm to themselves and each other despite their best intentions.
In this vein, God started with the most devout person he could find and offered to make him and his people great if they would follow him (of which the core is to love others and love God and not cause harm). To give them the best chance of living this unattainable goal out, he also isolates them from those who don't live like that by having them wipe them out, but the end result of the demonstration is that no matter how much is done to try to allow people to live out perfection, no matter how many rules are given, no matter how many "evil doers" are removed from their path, no matter how much blessing is bestowed upon them, people, in their hearts are still fundamentally incapable of either perfection or not harming themselves and others, even inadvertently, despite their best efforts.
The solution to this problem is what is presented in the New Testament. This is why the apparent sudden change from destroying anyone who does not believe or that behaves differently is changed and why the message is actually addressed not only to the Jewish people, but also the non-Jewish as a whole. The fundamental nature of God wanting what's best for all people never changed in either, it's just that the focus changed from giving one group the best chance possible and showing that it couldn't work to taking it on himself instead.
As for the eternal torment that you mention, the Bible also indicates that God is not willing that any should perish, but if the fundamental nature of man is rebellion to peace and love and the view that they know best what is good for them (even though it has been shown by history as a whole to not be the case, since objectively, we are no closer to peace now than ever before, it could even be argued that there is more injustice now than ever before), then how can individuals that refuse to acknowledge this and seek to have that flaw changed be part of a world that doesn't have the problems we have now?
Sure God could force people if he wanted to, but how is that just or fair? God gave us free will and he won't take that away from us. Therefore it is up to us to decide if we want to continue to feel that we are best on our own or best to rely on God's understanding. If God is creator and sustains the world, then simply giving people what they ask for will result in the suffering described. God doesn't have to torture those who reject him, he can simply leave them to their own devices (giving them exactly what they ask for) and sadly, the result of that is unending torment without the understanding that they need God to fix it.
Also, keep in mind that while the Old Testament explanation may not be sufficient to convince some that God isn't just, keep in mind that, according to the Bible, death and destruction is what we would all have if God wasn't intervening, so destruction of a people is no more than what we all deserved. It isn't fundamentally unjust since it is deserved by all and it isn't fundamentally childish as it was intended to teach a point to humanity as a whole.
I don't see any charges on Assange that the US has on him. Please point me to this list of laws he violated.
Oh, and his imaginary claims that if he went to another country to face rape charges or even an investigation into the allegations that he would be somehow end up in club gitmo is not enough.
And believing that you are always followed and snooped on will impair your ability to function.
But that turned out to be true – so is it really pathological, then? You might very well say you're delusional if you believe you *don't* get snooped on all the time.
Typically, I believe it actually helps you spree more. Case in point, Saddleback (a chain of SoCal megachurches).
.: Semper Absurda
The existence of consciousness does not imply god, nor does saying that god created it actually explain ANYTHING about consciousness. You may as well have said that tiny invisible pixies farted consciousness into the universe and we were the lucky recipients. It's just as testable and just as useful for us.
It's FAR more useful for us to admit "I don't know", and then try to create a testable hypothesis to make a real explanation. You know, do science type stuff.
When you lower yourself to an opponent's own "low ground" you = them. It'll forever dominate your destiny & you'll not only keep it up, but have to INCREASE doing it to cover your ass/tracks... which fails in the final analysis when the motives BEHIND such machinations aren't based on 100% truth, but rather, on "viruses of the spirit" (mainly greed).
When nobody "guards the guards" (law enforcement)? Corruption & abuse is guaranteed to set in. It's human natuer that "when the cat's away, the mice WILL play". It all fits the historical mold: Create "terror" & an enemy as job #1, get ahold of political, religious, & economic systems (IMF), & then mass media/communications... same as any dictatorial or fascistic regime has ALWAYS done.
Well, that's when the "good guys" are no longer GOOD guys, & especially if practicing the lame low mechanics of an "alleged enemy of the state", when it's REALLY about "continuity of government" (keeping those in power, in power).
In fact? You put it another way in another post of yours quoting Nietzche in fact (which I borrowed by the by, later in another post - thanks): "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster"
(Regarding our conversations on trolls & their sockpuppet multiple account mechanics & what-not - which isn't limited to forums online, it goes on ALL thru history - mainly from political or religion based sources...)
It's what's happened to ALL governments imo, & their law enforcement agencies... they've fallen into that death-spiral, & are dragging economic systems right down with them. They don't care either.
* In FACT, for once? I'm going to cite (of all people) Jeremiah Cornelius (whom I can't understand WHY he pulls shit on me like he did in the past, yet he & I see "eye to eye" on MANY things in the socio-political spectrum):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4099151&cid=44594301
(Either he's one hell of an "infiltrate & incite riot" agent provocateur, or he's pretty much A-OK & analyzes things rationally (the latter of which I respect, the former I hate)).
APK
P.S.=> Imo @ least (hence my belief system pretty much I outlined to you in that capacity - no real religion, just belief in God) - It ALL boils down to something VERY simple that often gets abused to "stir up the sheep": Religious ideologies - & the wasp (christians)/jews vs. Islamists/muslims.... they contradict one another (polar opposites on many issues) & even their OWN written beliefs, just to "fit things into their own picture as to 'why they are better'" - truth be told, neither is, & neither is without sin, using the SAME EXACT MECHANICS ALL THRU HISTORY on one another (fucking everyone else & progress, right the hell up, for decades to centuries @ a time no less) - insanity just because a few select "elitists" want power, nothing more (that's what I see @ least)!
... apk
You are completely missing the point. The pathology is a sense of distress and an inability to function. Unlike many people here, I have actually experienced periods of acute psychosis. I would hear a car door shutting and be terrified that it was a police officer or robber that was about the break down my door. I would feel an itch and feel that my body was covered with bugs. And I would keep a knife next to my bed to kill myself with so that I wouldn't be tortured by the same. Additionally, I would only go outside at night because I was convinced that everybody was disgusted at my appearance. And to relieve stress I would cut myself with knives. This is a real mental illness (borderline personality disorder/major depression/social anxiety). Play with the words as much as you want, but it really comes down to distress and inability to function. It isn't semantics. It is significant distress and profound disability. Keep that in mind, okay? Mental illness is more of a medical condition that some philosophical judgement. It is something that needs to be treated, not something that you are. And the reality of the NSA spying or not has no real impact on a diagnosis. The impairment and distress is the problem, not the reality.
Agreed, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and something true could be said, but without evidence to support it we don't know if it's ACTUALLY true. Any god, or afterlife, claim is an incredible claim and definitely needs strong evidence to support it. Proven existence of a supernatural being who cares about who you fuck, and what you think, would change my world view, but at the moment, there is no verifiable evidence.
Regarding your hurricane story, we know that people exist, and lived in areas hit by the hurricane. The person making such a claim wouldn't be said to be nuts on that alone. When somebody can show me any good evidence for an afterlife, or a god, I may change my mind. Until then, I don't accept their wild stories regardless of how sincere they believe them.
How dare he remove the blindfold that keeps voters from knowing the direction that their country is heading! We journalists have worked long and hard to support that blindfold. As a dedicated journalist, I'd drone-f&^$ any person who would be so arrogant as to inform the public. We need to wage war, not on government secrecy, but on personal secrecy, and we need to respect the governments right to privacy, so the voters can decide on the important issues, like what church their representative goes to, or whether they have diligently adhered to the two-inches-below-elbow-rolled-up-sleeves rule.
But they weren't innocent. Wasn't that the point of admiting he made a mistake and starting over? Aren't we still trying to get it right, but we will be forgiven for each of our sins if we truly believe His word?
I honestly am relatively new to all of it. However I know it's kept my daughter from continuing her spiral into the problems some of her friends have.
I don't attack someone who doesn't believe in Him. I am happy and my family is doing great things (Volunteering at the local food bank, assisting in maintenance of a shelter for abused women...). If believing that their is an all mighty being guides my family to help others. I don't see what is wrong.
To each their own I guess, doing kind things for others and a promise of an afterlife sounds pretty good to me though. If not? We are all gonna be 6 feet under anyway right? ;)
If an angel appeared to me and removed my appendectomy scar so I could never deny the reality of divine power, I still would not be a Christian.
Holy cow. (So to speak.)
Plastic surgeons are proof that God exists! Who knew?
Given the sum or average of the human condition, I would say it's fair to label rationality as the 'illness'. Our default mode of thought is to pick a 'side' or 'group' either for emotional reasons or because it's the first to get our ear. We then denigrate or dismiss anything that contradicts our view and remember and acknowledge things that support our view. That's 'normal'.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Julian Assange did a service to the world, by exposing criminal behavior done by the US military on innocent civilians (reporters for US newspapers). He ran a website that exposes this information, and he exposed the information in conjunction with large, well established German, American, British, Australian and Canadian newspapers. Drone strikes on the New York Times? No? But Julian Assange, yes, the Times reporter wants drones... It sounds stupid, but that's the sum total of it.
Drones have autonomy.
[Citation needed] for that broad statement. The Predator can be "Remotely piloted or fully autonomous". (And if you're going to claim that "drone" refers only to the fully autonomous ones, please provide a citation for that claim.)
Calling someone retarded is like calling them a dog or wolf or an animal which in no way infers they are less then human.
You meant "implies," stupid.
The drone sent out to kill someone is armed. Stop trying to be rabulistic.
OK, then, you should have said "a drone sent to kill someone is an offensive weapon. So it's offensive per definition." to make it clearer what you actually meant and to make it clearer that you don't think all drones are offensive weapons.
As I recall, Jesus was pretty specific about what you need to do to be in his good books. Roughly paraphased, it boils down to 'sell all your stuff, give the money to the poor and hit the road spreading the good news, god will look after you'. I don't see many 'christians' doing this part. I don't actually see any, personally. Conservative christians, like many religious people, pick and choose which bits are important to them (marriage seems like one of their favourites). They then criticise and judge people who don't align to their views on the matter (pretty sure Jesus also admonished that, but whatevs). ;)
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Using your own words, they're the same mental illness, just different manifestations of the delusions.
signature is pants
You know as well as I do that religious beliefs come in a spectrum, where most people consider them something as general guidance.
Or to put it another way, people pick out the bits they like and ignore the bits they don't. I think I missed the bit at the start of the book that says "everything in here is pretty optional, feel free to ignore the stuff you don't like".
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
I see no issue wishing a drone strike against this traitor. Ass-ange thought it was his own justification for what he has done. In my opinion that makes him a traitor and should be either hung or shot by a firing squad then dumped in the ocean. This is what use to be done to traitors. Not some BS political trial, which is just wasting more money.
The conservatard's definition of traitor: Betraying the government to be loyal to it's own people.
There is an obvious difference between commenting on an event that has already passed and wishing for, planning for, or incentivizing a future event.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
You're quite mistaken. Soren Kierkegaard, writing under the pseudonym of Johannes Climacus, proposed the argument that has been tritely characterized by his detractors (i.e. the detractors of Johannes Climacus, not those of Soren Kierkegaard) in the way you describe, but it's not a fair characterization. Paul, in contrast, considered the resurrection of Jesus to be adequate historical proof of his messianic role, and considered the traditions of Jewish prophecy to be corroborative support, with didactic value.
Kierkegaard's straw man actually made an argument which is of some persuasive quality from a Hegelian point of view, such as was prevalent in his millieux, but has little value from the viewpoint of modern British analytical philosophy. That argument is more fairly summarized thus:
The Absolute (godhead) is absolutely transcendant and necessary.
The incarnation is categorically immanent and contingent.
The very notion of godhead incarnate, therefore, is so utterly contradictory as to be beyond human conception.
Consequently, the real and present concept demonstrates transcendent intervention in facticity, i.e. that God is real and manifesting himself to us in history by means of Absolute Contradiction.
There being no other way to adequately explain the manifest phenomena, we must therefore believe this absurdity on the basis of its sheer absurdity alone.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Read James 1:13. I would suggest you learn more about the Bible before making unfounded accusations like that. One way to start is by praying to the "Hearer of Prayer" (Psalm 65:2) and asking him to know the truth about him.
Many people find evil sufficiently offensive so that they cannot accept an omnipotent God. I would point out however, that no matter how much evil there is in the world, if it is redeemable, then a good omnipotent deity will create that world, since it is eventually better for that world to exist that for it not to exist. Of course there will be a lot of complaining along the way, but it all comes out in the end. It's just your misfortune to be born in one such world. I personally would prefer to have been born in a world without any transitory suffering, but I'm not entirely sure such a perfect world is actually logically possible.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
That was the argument of the gnostics. They said The Creator was just as described. They downplayed creation as evil. To read more , try The Gnostic Gospels , Elaine Pagels. or for a novelized version, The Revolt of the Angels, Anatole France
You've watched far too many Thunderf00t videos. You've clearly been influenced by his astonishing ignorance and disturbing bigotry. As a result, you're living in a fantasy world -- but you're too deluded to notice!
You're fighting an imaginary war against an imaginary enemy. You think the danger you see is real and immediate. You're angry and feel powerless, so you act out online. You're compelled to spread the word (er, share your delusions) with the ignorant masses least the imaginary enemy take control and destroy your way of life!
What were you saying again about mental illness?
Required reading for internet skeptics
keep in mind that, according to the Bible, death and destruction is what we would all have if God wasn't intervening
As opposed to what we have now.
Note: Swedish man tax was overthrown in 2004.
And you can say that - in argument against an accusation of misandry - with a straight face how???
The US eliminated the poll tax in 1964. Has it enjoyed 40+ years of perfect racial harmony since then?
I will also add, he simply should never have been hired; he had no credentials in his chosen field, nor did he possess a doctorate, which was required to be offered a full time professorship. And the fact that tenure was offered a year later in a completely different department than which he was working, and in violation of the mandatory waiting period, shows that he was shielded by people who liked what he had to say.
So what's the difference between a general guide and the absolute doctrine of truth?
As someone who is mentally ill, I resent your comparison of me to any kind of thumper.
Then there's this thing called consciousness.
This veers close to a god of the gaps argument straight away, e.g. look - something we don't understand. Therefore, God.
Many try to us Occam's Razor to cut out God from this universe by saying based on our current understanding and knowledge our current universe does not "need" a God. But they could use the very same arguments to say that our current universe does not require humans to actually have consciousness - we could behave the exact same way we do without it (we could behave like self-aware creatures without that actual phenomena that we experience). And yet I know consciousness exists. Whether the rest of you are creatures capable of consciousness who really knows? I'd guess most of you are since I doubt I'm something really special.
This is a philosophical zombie argument, which basically boils down to something untestable. A P Zombie 'thinks' it has real thoughts, feelings, and desires, but it 'doesn't really'. We 'think' we have experiences and qualia. It's untestable, much like the God hypothesis itself. This doesn't mean it's wrong, it means it's untestable, and therefore a matter of faith. Which makes arguments such as this largely redundant.
Sure it could be a fluke, Weak Anthropic Principle etc but after a certain point Occam's Razor cuts both ways - the simplest explanation might be there's a God who created our universe that looks simple and yet complicated, beautiful and ugly depending on how you look at it.
Largely unsatisfying because it raises the question of who made the maker. And even then, which potential maker do you choose? If there is a real God, it seems safe to imagine that all human theories about him/her/it are speculation dressed up as something more concrete.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
From an outsider looking in, what I see passing for "extremes" of conservativism and liberalism (and libertarianism and other narrow ones) all look like varying extremes of conservativism.
The nuanced, in the middle "truth" I find must surely, from your perspective, look like extreme liberalism.
Thus the statement
The truth is always nuanced and in the middle somewhere.
is not self-consistent. This is before we get quibbling about "always [...] in the middle", which just isn't the case always and may not be most of the time, though it may well be in this case. Young Earth Creationists don't get to compromise with old earthers (creationists or non-creationists alike) and find that the world is just millions of years old, not thousands or billions, for example. Convergence to the mean is a statistical property that doesn't apply outside of statistics, and even within statistics does not apply generally to all distributions.
But all that aside, you've ignored the criticism. You're backhandedly insulting the mentally ill, who've done nothing to you. Alzheimer's patients aren't the ones fucking around with foreign policy.
Mental illness isn't the same as being wrong or even making an illogical conclusion. You can be mentally ill and right *all the time*. You can have no mental illness and be continually wrong.
I'm religious because St. Paul gave a good evidence based argument for belief in life after death in Corinthians
Presumably you're not referring to
because the only evidence (in the sense of "something connected with the real world as observed through the senses and extensions thereof") is that "is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead" (there are certainly enough people preaching that, so it's hard to deny that it is so preached). Presumably "you" in "some of you" refers to Christians, so "because we're not Christians and don't believe Christ has been raised from the dead" is not an answer.
Now, "Christ was raised, but he's a special case" is, in the context of that translation, a valid answer; it doesn't say "it is preached that we shall all be raised from the dead", it just says "Christ has been raised from the dead".
As for the rest of the if-then statements, well, perhaps the "then" statements he makes are true; maybe the people to whom he wrote those letters wouldn't have wanted to hear that, but that just leaves them with a choice - if you hear "if A, then B", and don't like hearing "B", you can either grit your teeth and accept "B" or abandon "A".
As for verses 35 on, I see no evidence, I just see a bunch of assumptions, such as "If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body."
I'm religious because there's a mathematical proof of the existence of God, by Kurt Godel none-the-less, and his math looks good.
"His math looks good" just means "if the axioms are held true, then the conclusions are also true". Another if-then there, and be very careful about saying "the axioms must be true, they're self-evident". Some might think the parallel postulate self-evident, but we don't live on a flat sheet, so it's not true for the geometry of the surface on which we live.
Drones have autonomy.
[Citation needed] for that broad statement. The Predator can be "Remotely piloted or fully autonomous". (And if you're going to claim that "drone" refers only to the fully autonomous ones, please provide a citation for that claim.)
The Predator can be remotely piloted, but it also has autonomy. You have provided no evidence to contradict my claim. I certainly will not claim that it refers only to fully-autonomous models.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"there's a mathematical proof of the existence of God"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That was funny.
No wait... you're serious?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Fucking idiot.
Cogito Ergo Sum. We know we ourselves exist, and so any theory of universal origins must contain the possibility of ourselves and our experiences eventually arising. That's a different sort of razor that is applied long before Occam's.
Might as well ask how we know purple exists (assuming you aren't colourblind or fully blind).
Just more Obama speak from the Obama news cartel. Treason only seems to be a crime in the US when it's not the US president committing it.
No, no it isn't. Drones have autonomy.
How much autonomy did the Radioplane Company's RP-5A / OQ-2A / TDD-1 have? (And, yes, the middle "D" in "TDD" stands for "Drone".)
Well, it certainly cleared any misconceptions I had about your stupidity. Idiot.
Where this true AI your claiming exists that runs the drones? A human operator is in the loop.
Where this true AI your claiming exists that runs the drones? A human operator is in the loop.
Not only are you hahahahilarious, but I never claimed anything of the sort.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Suprise sex.
Which evidence has been so tainted, it will be impossible to convict for.
But this isn't a problem. Some foreigner in Sweden who has a crime alleged with them in Sweden can be extradited without recourse to any other country that they have an agreement with who wishes to have him face charges there. However, once charged, they must see the claims all the way through in the Swedish courts first.
#Can't wait for Time to justify firing a reporter
I've had experiences much like your appendectomy example, but I'm still not religious for pretty much the reasons you describe. I require my god to be at least as moral as I am, and even then I don't see why it would be appropriate for me to kiss his ass. Furthermore man's theologies have more to do with men, and with the power that men wish to exercise over other men, than with God. To the extent that scripture to be taken seriously, making shit up, even inspired shit, then calling it God's Word, is blasphemy anyway. And I agree that a non-religious person can love the Golden Rule, I think its a great principle.
That said, the caricatured view that people on this site often have about conservatives and Christians is often grossly unfair. Though there is a lot of truth in the caricature, the motivations and general outlook of people in both groups is also often a lot more intelligent, nuanced, and compassionate than they're given credit for. And despite all of their stupidity, dishonesty, and cognitive dissonance, there are a few things that conservatives and Christians often understand better and act on more sincerely than atheists or people on the left do. Not everybody is cut out to question everything and invent a custom philosophical outlook for themselves. If they feel helped the general characteristics of a particular religion, they get out of it what they can, while glossing over whatever aspects of it don't seem to make as much sense. I'm not one of those people, I can't shackle my intellect that way, or let a priest or guru tell me how I should live. But most other people are not like me in that regard. They're going to buy into something, and no matter what they buy into its going to have skews and limitations, because people aren't honest enough for it to be otherwise.
Part of the problem, as I see it, is that some of the realities of life can be pretty difficult to take psychologically if you feel and think deeply about them. So people suppress their emotions, or logic, or deny some part of the picture that makes the remaining part more palatable. But different people see different things clearly, and fudge their worldviews in different ways. Most people, for instance, want to think of themselves as being a part of a large group which sees the world the 'right' way, with the problems being the fault of some other group. Actually all political groups, as I see it, including the minority 'aternative' factions like libertarianism, are f-ed up in important ways if you look for it. Seeing that while still maintaining a healthy optimism and love of life isn't a trick that very many people can pull off. And maybe nobody pulls if off very well, everyone wrestles with it one way or another.
Why is it that despite their complexity or perhaps because of it so many of these advanced arguments seem to be supercomputer generated arguments generated by advanced forms of the old analysis program Liza with perhaps a troll generator built in for variety?
You said " Drones have autonomy" did you not understand what you wrote there? That you said that the drone had full rational control of its mission?
"Quite a lot" is a good term to use when it can mean anywhere from 0% to 10%. No church I have ever attended (or worked for, I've done quite a lot of work for churches) has ever had more than 10% of their income go to any charitable cause at all, and the vast majority of them do as little for charitable causes as they can get away while providing the illusion that they do.
And believing that you are always followed and snooped on will impair your ability to function
Funny, because all monotheistic religions believe exactly this. And on a societal level, it very provably does impair ability to function, as we can all see with laws allowing Creationism to be taught in schools, or blaming rape on the victim, or any number of insane ideas religious fundamentalists try to foist upon the rest of humanity.
Please show evidence.
So.. many.. logical fallacies...
bullshit. Comparing someone with certain thoughts to someone who has a mental illness, is equating those certain thoughts to a mental illness. It's got nothing personal to do with people suffering from a mental illness. You gotta be insane not to understand that.
Agreed. Additionally, to claim otherwise is what's known as Identity Politics.
An individual representation does not imply the identity of a group is associated via the representation. Words like "Objectification" and other such Orwellian nonsense implies false prevalence of agreement between the observers' conclusions. It's insulting to observers and ignores that folks rarely come to the same conclusions about portrayals -- Just ask folks leaving a movie theater about the characters' drives. A portrayal of someone or something as evil or sexy or smart or literally retarded doesn't attribute that characteristic to your identity. To imply otherwise is to incite unwarranted action. Eg: My step-aunt is mentally retarded; She overcomes adversity and smiles an optimistic light into the world showing that even the disabled can benefit society -- Imagine that "conservatism is a mental illness" that could make folks be more like my aunt... Oh, the horror of the implication!
Similarly such terms as "sex positive", "politically correct", "rape culture", etc. are laughable. Politics shuns correctness, rape is less prevalent than murder, and sex needs neither positive or negative connotations. E.g.: might as well say "Goodspeach", "Doubleplusgoodsex", etc. The Orwellian double speech of identity politics applies needless additional connotations to create thought policing where none are required, and bend weak minds through shame.
Fuck the Thought Police.
For example?
GTFO, troll!
Ward Churchill was brought to public attention because of making controversial comments, but the University defended his right to make whatever controversial opinion comments he wanted. He was fired for academic research misconduct including plagiarism and falsification of evidence.
Many regard the trial that ensued as a vindication of Churchill's conduct. It was not that. He alleged and the jury believed that his firing would not have occurred if he hadn't also made unpopular political comments. But they did not consider whether or not he had engaged in the misconduct which in fact he had. He plagiarized parts of his work and outright made up evidence to support his thesis of an intentional use of smallpox in the genocides of American Indian tribes. Whether or not he would have been fired for such offenses, had his poltical comments about 9/11 not been inflammatory, he should have been fired for such misconduct. It is the professor's job to teach by his own example how to do academic research, and he was a bad example.
Actually, that's not true at all. Let's try a different example. A black person is caught cheating on an exam and gets an "F" as a result. Now, looking at only that, a reasonable person would say he deserves it. Now, if it happens that twenty white people were also caught cheating on the exam, but had nothing done to them, that changes the story quite a bit. You cannot be selective of who you punish. If you punish one person who has unpopular opinions for academic misconduct, but don't fire people who also commit that sort of academic misconduct and don't have unpopular opinions, then you are firing him simply for having unpopular opinions.
One guy from Africa, with about 1% of my formal education once told me "the Christian church is only about money". Sadly, I now think he was absolutely right. Our forerunners became Christians because it meant they would become more wealthy and powerful. Welcome in the rich club of doublespeak !
Funnily you Christian-followers seem to take sides with the modern Herodes against his fight against the Christus of our time, Bradley Manning.
May you rot in your hell.
Oh, Assange is an Anglo Cityoen/Subject and all Anglos are the bitch of America and Israel. So what he did was "Treason". Can't you see the logic ?
Turns out I recall alright - if you wish to enter into 'life' you can merely keep the commandments; though being 'complete' seems to require more:
Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property.
Matthew 19.
There's nothing irrational about pointing out inconsistencies in how people follow a religion. Being able to criticise religion is a luxury of the modern age for which I'm quite thankful, though Islam seems determined to put itself beyond any and all criticism still. Christians don't seem to be able to muster up the same anger these days.
Sadly many Christians also accept the Old Testament, particularly the evangelical denominations. Needless to say most of the nasty or downright bizarre stuff gets glossed over (e.g. Samson killing a load of people because they cheated at his 'riddle' about killing a lion and finding bees and honey in its carcass instead of gore).
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You can literally turn EVERYTHING into a weapon, given creativity.
I find myself thinking this every time I go through airport security.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Oh yeh well my invisible friend can beat up your invisible friend so there.
I'm not sure I'd assume that about Fred Phelp's colleagues. They know they are firebrands. They probably consider him *right*, though.
I agree with your overall point though.
He's charged with sexual assault, period. Hell, even if you disagree with the charges, disagree with the actual charges, but don't spread a bunch of lies that are set up to discredit rape victims.
You just asked previous poster not to lie about the sexual assault charges. There ARE no charges. He has not been charged with any crime.
Maritz - I have read several of your posts on this thread and wholeheartedly agree. Its no wonder in my mind why Christians feel like they are being discriminated against... its because what they are practicing isn't Christianity, rather its some sort of "leadership" skill where they try to control other people, with the goal apparently being to close the sale and have another tither in the flock.
A few days ago, I was listening and recording for a few friends a message originating from Gravette, Arkansas, from a man I had long considered the Linus Torvalds of Christianity. The one man amongst every tele-evangelist I have ever heard, that soundly denounced bringing the "begging-bag" when spreading the Word. Then to hear his son on the air answering a question about doing exactly what I was doing - recording the message and spreading it.
The guy who sent in the question about recording the telecast for friends was thoroughly denounced for violating the copyrighted work of the Chapel with permission to copy explicitly denied. I sat there aghast. The pastor went on to say how expensive air time was and how the Church made money from selling the CD's. If people like him made bootleg copies of the sermons, there would be no need of them to "contact" the church. But yet the church pays for airtime and a satellite transponder? The church constantly refers to listeners on shortwave... so I guess the rebroadcasters on shortwave are also under some contract and do not do this because the "spirit" or whatever drives us guides us to do this?
Ehhh? I was in the depths of cognitive dissonance by that time. Copyrighted? Jesus? Religion? Faith? Mark of the Beast? False Gods? Living a Lie? Could I imagine Jesus copyrighting his Sermon on the Mount? Was this pastor really unique, or was he just another moneymonger earning his keep not from faith and God, but coersion by Copyright Law? Was this spiritual, or was I just unwittingly assisting a businessman in pursuit of wealth?
Yes, he claims there are bills to be paid. He preaches faith, but can he practice the faith he preaches? Is God's hand short? They also need Marketing Skills and coercion of Law to make the church a viable financial entity?
A few seconds later, it sunk in. I switched the TV off. I ejected the disk from the recorder, broke it in half, and tossed it in the trash.
All this time, I feel I have been deceived. I thought I was doing the right thing by spreading the Word. TV stations charged for doing it. I was doing it for no charge - just trying to sow the seeds of faith. The pastor is far more knowledgeable on the holy texts and far more eloquent than I am. Then I find the seed is no good. Copyrighted. I wasn't doing anyone any favors. I was actually breaking the law by spreading the Word, according to this source. The Chapel understands Business Methods, and payment in the Coin of Man must be tendered.
This is not the God I know. This is the Beast. Also known as The Bank.
I am having one helluva time trying to link up with others that are so amazed with God's doings without trying to coerce a tithe out of someone. This money stuff drives me nuts. I guess I am still looking for the Linux of God's Word - for the people - not for the businessmen who only seem to understand the coin of the realm.
You've never lived or spent much time in Sweden, have you?
It's true that relations between the sexes are rather different here than most places I've been. The difference is that women here are brought up to believe that they're fully equal to men, and they're not obligated in any way to do whatever men tell them to do simply because they're women.
It might not be what you're used to (and it took me a few years to adjust to it, myself), but to dismiss it as "misandry" is a complete mischaracterisation.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It's a powerful fertilizer, that's why. :)
Score:5, Troll
Goodness me, did you just break Slashdot?!
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
Federal statutes? Seriously? Wow, I'm sure that makes everything just fine and dandy! Gee thanks for setting me straight, mister!
Snowden told the American people about billions of counts of illegal wiretapping by the NSA. He exposed a crime, he's a whistleblower, QED. Your claim that he's "selling secrets to the russians" is a baseless smear, so fuck you.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
'cause these loonies take the shit about paradise serious and blow themselves up in your face to get there.
Yes - yes they do, it is absolutely undeniable. Those that disagree are simply operating from an agenda.
No matter how you want to spin it - and we all know there are plenty who want it spun one way or another - people are being killed by Muslims for religious reasons.
Incredibly, the global media seems to want to find any excuse to look the other way. What on Earth is that all about? I thought the media were hungry for anything they could hype the shit out of? Surely Islamic violence is a gift to lazy reporters everywhere? What is going on here?
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
You blithering idiot. If the US government obeyed laws, we wouldn't even know who Snowden is. You know goddamned well that if they got their hands on Snowden, they'd torture him like Bradley Manning.
That particular advice was for getting to Heaven's realm in this life. Otherwise, to get to it in the afterlife, he said you'd just have to obey the Ten (twelve ?) Commandments.
Maybe we deserve this world ?
More like, "Editor's note: There were no editors, and authors are unverified. Also, this book was transcribed and translated by unknown individuals as well. Additionally, some parts may be missing. Please take messages in the book with a Lot's wife sized grain of salt."
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
This actually isn't at all what Jesus said. The only time he says to sell all you have and give it to the poor is when talking with the rich man who thought he was following Jesus. The point was to show the man that there was something the man loved more than Jesus. That command is never restated and was an answer to that guys specific question of what HE had to do.
No, No, No and Yes. For the first two, they are the result of free will. We make people starve, we rape and murder. God doesn't make them happen, we do. The only way for God to prevent them would be to dispose of free will, but how is that just or loving to make us slaves to his will? You could argue, well then why doesn't he simply punish the rapists and murderers? The answer to that is that they are no worse than you or I. You can look on them with a comparative standard, but your and my lack of action and consumption of resources has indirectly resulted in the suffering, and yes, deaths, of others in the world. Comparatively we may seem better, but compared to a perfect world, we are both infinitely far from it.
God ordered the Israelites to kill men, women and children because he loves humans as a whole and was demonstrating our inability to live perfectly even when cut off from any outside negative influences. It was extreme, sure, but an objective look at the Bible demonstrates clearly the nature of Israel as a giant demonstration of human failures, even when given the best possible chance.
It isn't that God can't stand to be around his own creation, it is that short of suspending free will, God can't create a perfect world while we keep doing everything in our power to screw it up. How can there be a world without harm when all we know how to do is take for ourselves and harm others, even if unintentionally and indirectly.
I do agree with you that the desire to push other people in to following Christian morality through law is a problem though. I am personally opposed to this as it isn't the foundation of the country and people should follow by choice, not force. I also look forward to the downfall of "cultural Christianity" as it is immensely harmful to Christianity to be associated with those who don't actually understand the belief system or how to live it out because they are "Christian" out of social obligation rather than actually truly believing anything.
Yes, so the people who were told to put your faith in God and give up your HIV meds are not mentally impaired? These people drive me to the point of de-evolving to where I find flinging my own feces as a proper retaliatory response.
Place something witty here
Imagine what we have now, but without any good in the world. Imagine if people had no moral reason to do anything but look out for themselves. Imagine if all we did is what we could to get ahead at any cost to others. Then imagine a world where that was everyone. How much "weeping and gnashing of teeth" do you expect there would be? According to the Bible, that is the world without God. It doesn't take God punishing anyone, according to the Bible, that would just be our natural state.
You said " Drones have autonomy" did you not understand what you wrote there? That you said that the drone had full rational control of its mission?
It's time for you to learn English. If you won't do that, don't talk to me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Fred Phelps is a Democrat, and ran for office a number of times as a Democrat. Also was a big supporter of Mr. Al Gore.
What makes me ponder is the whole Great Flood theme in the first place.
Either God knew what he was going to create. Then it is HIS fault that everything turned out the way it did and if he isn't happy with it, why did he allow it to turn out that way, since he is omnipotent he could easily have avoided it.
Or he didn't know how we'd turn out and he made a mistake. Then he's not the all powerful one, but someone who makes mistakes.
Or he knew how it would turn out, he wanted mankind to be "evil" and he wanted it to come to this that he must send the Great Flood and kill everyone. Then he's a sadistic, murderous bastard not worthy of worship but rather someone we should fear and fight with all our potential.
Pick your God.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's someone believing in the invisible hand, not the invisible friend.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My God has a bigger dick than your God!
(c) George Carlin
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Yes, one would be silenced, because in our society one delusion is well accepted and praised while the other one is feared and villainized. That's exactly what I was trying to point out, that they are, essentially, the same kind of disease, but one is treated way differently than the other one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
This is a misconception. This was not Jesus' point. If you sell and give all your stuff away, then you will learn how to be good. But this is not a requirement. It's just that it's really hard for a rich man to make it to heaven. Ultimately, it's the fingerprint of your mind that opens the door to the kingdom of heaven. Jesus says it takes the mind of a child to unlock that kingdom. And a child has no real concept of money. Use your money. Just don't have unhealthy attachment to it. Or to your wife. Or to drugs or food. You get the point. Hard to get into heaven.
'scuse me?
I don't know that guy, if it's of any importance to you I'll go watch his videos, but maybe you could save me from spending my time there and inform me what he's about. Then again, I enjoy a good laugh and by your description, it sounds like I'll probably get one out of it.
But on topic.
I'm not fighting any wars. And I have no word to spread. Well, unless you consider my (by US standards) incredibly left-leaning liberal position, and my disgust of the current pseudo-capitalism we "enjoy", something I should spread. Aside of that, and my avowed atheism which I prefer to sprinkle in the face of bible thumpers for my enjoyment rather than in a messianic way (sorry, but it's just too hilarious when religious nutjobs explode). More a guilty pleasure of mine than something that should accomplish anything, to be brutally honest.
My way of life has already been destroyed. Take a look at the state the internet is in and you can easily see what I mean. My way of life was one of freedom and liberty. That has been stripped away and taken from me. I fight, tooth and nail, as good as I can, but it's quite a bit like keeping the ocean at bay with just a broom to push against it. A few weeks ago, I could not have argued if you called that an imaginary enemy. I guess, though, now I have far more proof than I ever really wanted to have.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Duh. Do YOU want your editorial office blown to tiny bits and pieces because you dared to write that $prophet is a $not_so_nice_word?
The problem with islamist loonies is simply that they don't sue. It's the same reason why you don't write a slanderous article in the school magazine about the school bully while you have no problem writing one about the school geek. One can beat you up, one can at best tell the principal to give you a stern lecture. What are you, in general, more afraid of, as a student?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Ah, so you're gay. Had to be a reason for the vitriol.
If the Kardashians are nuked from orbit, my wife will commit suicide! I will become a widower and my kids will become orphans. No, please please let them live. Kill Rodman and Assange if you will, but don't you dare mess with the K's!!!
My apologies. What is the currently accepted politically correct term for someone who has an invisible friend and follows his orders?
Schizophrenic.
When they call the voice Bob, we give them meds. When they call it God, we let them wreak havoc upon the world.
What an interesting ...argument. I get the feeling that the vast majority of such "arguments" should generally be considered as an intellectual artform akin to a Rube Goldberg kinetic sculpture. Certainly as a logical construct they seem to go to great and convoluted lengths to say nothing more than "I have faith ... ... ... therefore I have faith". Not that there's anything wrong with that, I imagine it has served as a focus for countless hours of religious meditation/contemplation over the years and has helped propel some of those of the faith to a deeper appreciation of it, but it would seem to have no bearing on a reasoned discussion.
Perhaps more to the point at hand I do not understand how that construct has any bearing at all on life after death, unless perhaps it stands as an illuminated letter at the beginning of a statement that the bible says so and thus it must be. Could you illuminate?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
>I'm religious because 'sin' really does look like it's 100% omnipresent
Hmm, an interesting position. I certainly agree that such an omnipresent behavior is deserving of a deep and subtle explanation, but see no reason to invoke the metaphysical to find it. Certainly I have seen all manner of cruel, selfish, and self-destructive behavior in others and myself, but have never seen any reason to presume that it is any more than a manifestation of the various competing instincts of a species that has developed many and varied, often mutually contradictory, survival and reproductive strategies over the eons, both selfish and cooperative. Certainly it seems easy to find analogues to most any non-intellectual human behavior among our animal kin, and most behaviors with an intellectual component seem to be readily explained by a combination of instinct and our propensity for storytelling - that is to build self-reinforcing mental constructs to guide and justify our behavior "I believe she hates me, therefore her objectively innocuous behavior must mean X, therefore, therefore, ..., and so I sacked Rome"
As for Godel's proof, I take exception to Axiom 1 - " Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive", which would seem to be directly contradictory to the duality that lies at the heart of the Eastern philosophy: light and darkness exist only in relation to each other - the existence of one is necessary and sufficient to imply the existence of the other. Without darkness, light is a non-concept.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Imagine what we have now, but without any good in the world. Imagine if people had no moral reason to do anything but look out for themselves. Imagine if all we did is what we could to get ahead at any cost to others. Then imagine a world where that was everyone. How much "weeping and gnashing of teeth" do you expect there would be? According to the Bible, that is the world without God. It doesn't take God punishing anyone, according to the Bible, that would just be our natural state.
I've seen nothing to believe the Bible is correct on that point.
Personally I like the the Hindu dramatic flavor of the argument, in which the world with evil is *preferable* to the one without, because the conflict allows for much richer storytelling with higher highs and lower lows than could be hoped to be reached otherwise. If the light that shines from the eyes of the oppressor is is not just the same *kind* as the one that shines from the victim, but rather actually shines from the same source, then there is not truly a victim and an oppressor, there is only a light performing the roles so well that it forgets that they are only roles, dancing with itself through the ages.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Bias and malignancy.
To all the traitors that would condone every whistle-blower be jailed or murdered, you deserve neither liberty nor freedom.
Never mess with mother nature and russia
Casteism
Silenced by whom? Phelps has a right to rant in his own preferred way, but not a right to make anybody listen to him. By claiming the attack was God's punishment for tolerating homosexuality, he appears to have something of a receptive audience. That doesn't mean he'd have the same audience for claiming it was God's punishment for not enacting Sharia law. It also doesn't mean somebody would do something nefarious and/or illegal to silence him if he were Muslim.
Personally, I'm not fond of either Bible thumping or Koran thumping in the service of hate, and think that anybody irrational enough to go along with it is very likely to think their particular religious group is good and others are bad.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Leviticus is primarily a book with how the Levites are supposed to live. The Levites are one of the twelve tribes who's primary purpose (set out in Leviticus but started from leaving Egypt) is to be the religious administrators within the Jewish religion (priests, temple servants, etc.).
Why does this matter? Every time some idiot pulls up a rule from the book of Leviticus and tries to point out how Christians are hypocrites because they aren't following that rule are being the idiots, those rules are for the priests of Judaism, not for the common Christian.
Trying to apply rules from Leviticus to modern Christians is like trying to apply proper care of your horse to driving an electric hybrid.
DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
Misandry is where you discard the idea of societal harm to males and change the subject to the rights of females.
And the US is the most successful country in history. Probably just a coincidence....
By what standard? It doesn't even crack the top five for land (British Empire, Mongol Empire, Russian Empire, Spanish Empire, Umayyad Caliphate), nor for population (Achaemenid Empire, Mauryan Empire, Sassanid Empire, Qing Dynasty, Ymayyad Caliphate) and, I'm not even going to look it up, but trust me it's nowhere near the top for duration.
The only one the US 'wins' is historically adjusted GDP (America, Qing Dynasty, Mughal Empire, British Empire, Russian Empire) and even there, China is expected to surpass the US by 2016. So be careful with your claims of "Most successful in history". There are some of us out here who actually know history. And by histories standards, the US is notable, but hardly #1.
So, if the government is going to give this bozo equal time, there'll be a SWAT team bust in his door, steal all his electronics for "inspection" (and of course will stomp on them on the way to the evidence room), and will put him in jail for...oh...maybe a year for "hate speech", right?
Of course not, because the people that pull the trigger agree with this jackass. They're just not stupid enough (by and large) to have posted something like that in a public place.
-Ken
It reminds me of the 'logical proofs' of the existence of God that Descartes held (though I have heard others attribute it to Augustine). Stated plainly it stated that he imagined a perfect God. One of the aspects of a perfect God is his existence. He couldn't imagine a perfect God if God did not exist, therefore, God must exist.
That's someone believing in the invisible hand, not the invisible friend.
That's true, The Market is nobody's "friend."
You mean like that guy that made a movie showing what the Koran says about the "dear prophet"? last I heard he was in jail, they found an excuse and used it.
Make NO mistake there ARE protected classes in the USA and if you piss off one of the protected classes you WILL get attacked, probably lose your job, maybe even go to jail.
My apologies, but are you talking about the fellow who made The Innocence of Muslims? The guy committed bank fraud and was sent to prison, and that was all before he poked the Muslim world with a stick. The terms of his probation was that he couldn't use aliases (which he had used to kite checks and steal money) and his Internet use had to be pre-approved by his parole officer.
When he broke his parole he did it in the most public way possible. Not surprisingly, he went back to jail. Was he supposed to be treated differently just because he posted a controversial video that many people might agree with?
He's also out of jail now, on probation again.
My apologies. What is the currently accepted politically correct term for someone who has an invisible friend and follows his orders?
Anyone who wants to be elected President? A candidate?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Simple cowardice explains it all? I suppose we do call most of their tripe "yellow journalism" after all.
You're probably quite right but I wonder if there isn't also some other underlying factor. If you'd told me ten years ago that the UK would embrace Islam and even go so far as to allow Sharia courts to enforce Islamic "justice" I would have never believed you. I find the whole thing quite sickening.
..Mullah or Pope, Preacher or Poet, who was it wrote: "Give any one species too much rope and they'll fuck it up"?
The term for your above statement is hyperbole. You know as well as I do that religious beliefs come in a spectrum, where most people consider them something as general guidance. In this sense, a religion is more a philosophy.
The distinction is specious because religious or non-religious people can be either sane or insane. It really doesn't have much to do with the religion, but more the thought process. I thinke we sort of agree here, so I have no argument with you, more some of the other posters here.
When those imaginary friends cause distress or disability, then that is a mental illness. And for 99% of religious people, this does not apply.
Well, now, I'm not sure about that 99 percent of people. There was an interesting audio bit on NPR - I think it was an episode of "This American Life" about a young man who was immersed in a religious cutlure and taught that sex was bad, alone or with someone or at least that's how he took it. Needless to say, his biological urges started making him very miserable, a sort of masturbatory analog to binge eating, complete with the fears he was condemned to hell for his evil acts. He was desparately miserable, yet not really mentally ill, just terribly misguided. Though he thought he was going mad
The amusing thing was that after he screwed up the courage to mention his problem with a Preacher, the preacher had him come back a bit later, when he was handed a porn mag. The preacher told him to study it, do whatever came to mind, and forget any ideas about that sort of thing being evil or bad. Smart and practical preacher. The guy was pretty well cured of his issue.
I was also pretty miserable for a while in childhood dealing with religioous matters, something not fully fixed until I realized that I couildn't reconcile a kind and loving God who was looking for any excuse to torture me forever and ever, amen - was just a poorly thought out story.
My maternal step-Grandmother was religious, not the go to church on Sunday, try to be a good Christian, but a Fundie. And she occasionally went on raving fire and brimstone rants. When she had a certain sparkle in her eyes, we knew it was coming. She wasn't miserable, although the rants took a lot of energy - I remember having to sit through one for almost a whole day.
The rest of us? Not so much fun. She eventually recieved shock treatment when the rants became almost nonstop. But she was really happy. And after the shock treatment, plus a little bit of pharmaceutical help, she was still religious, and we all had a great time around each other.
The great irony is that whenever I hear the fundies on TV or radio preaching with great vigor, it sounds just like the stuff that spouted from her mouth. And I can't help but wonder if a little shock treatment might help them a bit.
But really, insanity can either have nothing to do with religion, or it can have a lot to do with it. But it's no prerequisite.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
It reminds me of the 'logical proofs' of the existence of God that Descartes held (though I have heard others attribute it to Augustine). Stated plainly it stated that he imagined a perfect God. One of the aspects of a perfect God is his existence. He couldn't imagine a perfect God if God did not exist, therefore, God must exist.
And so must the perfect chocolate ice cream cone, unless "must exist" is a property only of a God conceived of as being perfect in everything, and other "perfect" things don't have to be "perfect" in all their properties and thus aren't obliged to be be perfect with regards to the "existence" property. Of course, in that case, God must be, among other things, a perfect cup of espresso, in which case I'd really like to know God....
(Another question that might be raised is "is "existence" a property in the same way that "wisdom" and "having just enough of the crema on top" and "being able to make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it" are?")
Saying "The law should protect me" is little comfort when faced with an agency known for its dirty tricks and now stands accused of violating other laws as a matter of casual policy.
Supposedly laws were supposed to protect Bradley Manning, but after his torture, I wouldn't blame anyone for thinking they'd be far safer in non-US jurisdiction.
You are well named. As a troll you bring neither fact nor insight and exist only to rile people up. I apologize for falling for it, I should have known better by now.
Please don't try to redefine words to suit your agenda. It does not make you look smart.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Well, you have proved you have absolutely no understanding of the bible. Jesus told someone trying to buy his way into heaven that. His point was that he put money before God and he would have to fix that problem not that all Christians are to be broke forever. Further, timothy and luke and a few other books talk about this too. They describe how rich people fall to sin in gathering and relishing their riches.
Christians generally never did muster up that sort of anger. People positioning themselves for power have (inquisition) and people who were scared have (Salem witch hunts), but Christians themselves often turn the other cheek when criticized. Anyways, what you pointed out doesn't say what you think it says.
lol.. Here is more of your misunderstanding. The old testament is properly placed in Christianity because it teaches the covenants the lord made with the people and the prophecies that legitimizes Jesus as Christ. The part you think is glossed over is the history of the other covenants. Those books were supposedly written while those covenants were still active and added to the collection called the bible.
Liken it to this if you still don't understand. Suppose there is a town and it flooded every 10 or so years when it rained a lot. People and property were destroyed because other rains would erode the path of the flood waters and it would enter from different points. So they built a dam and held the waters back. Now suppose that dam had burst at some time and killed half he town and destroyed 1/3 of it. They rebuilt it to be a better dam and built a channel to direct the water away from town along with flood gates to lower the water levels before the rainy season. Now several decades have passed with no incidents and someone wants to build an apartment building in the middle of the new flood plain. They petition to have the dam removed or alternatively to stop the release of water. But people look back at the history and understand why the dam is there and why there is a release of water. This is essentially the old testament simplified. Its the history of the new testament, it outlines the prophecies that needed fulfilled for Jesus to be our savior and the new testament is the history of that happening along with what we are commanded under the latest covenant.
And I pointed out where you are completely wrong. Neither is silenced as I pointed out. There is even supposed to be a million Muslim march on Washington soon too. How is that possible if they are silenced?
Curious. Insane is a legal term. Crazy is a social term. Mental illness is a medical term. It also had a lot of stigma and reasonable mental health types avoid the label because it follow you around. Further, historically it was often misdiagnoised. If you get slammed by the mental health police then you need to be very careful what you say.
Since we are near august 26 I happen to have been doing some research and have a nasty that worked out because everyone involved was extremely careful. And a us senator blew the whistle.
So alice paul and friends was doing very peaceful demos in front of the white house. Except they were getting broken ribs and so on. But it was okay until the war started. Then we had a national defense issue. You know--treason. Best we know wilson was just unhappy. But someone solved the problem by having dc city throw them all in jail. So we have a bit of torture. We have a hunger strike. Paul would not be feed. Wilson now gets involved. He has her slammed by the mental health police and she is strapped down and nutrionally waterboarded. Very very ugly. The shrink says she is sane and the fundamental reason is that she does NOT have a personal issue with wilson nor does she think the reverse.
A us senator had an estranged wife or just divorced wife in the jail on the hunger strike. He visits. They do an illegal hug at end of the visit and the woman slips him a report. Within a few days there is a political firestorm all along the east coast.
As a national defense measure wilson asked congress to pass the 19th amendment and send it to the states and so on. The political prisoners were all exonerated. The amendment was ratified.
Here are some other Paul effects.
You can demo in front of the white house.
You can have a protest march in the capital.
Hmm. Think MLK?
She put language into the league of nationscharter on womans rights.
She put even better language into the UN charter.
She put gender in both civil rights acts.
Your daughter gets athletic participation funding including possible full rides.
Oh. She wrote the ERA admendment.
Now this is just internet research but quite a bit of it. I can guarantee you can find contradictory cites and some cites just obviously contain errors anyway. But I think the pattern is compelling.
I think you are sad. On the other hand in the 1970's I opposed the ERA. Life is twisty.
It nice that you know The Truth about how the universe works and that is by it obeying a simple statistical concept. If, heaven forbid, we called this an ideology, might we call it extreme? I guess not. The big shifts that change the mean an its units of measure are not important. And we have no sense of agency to make big shifts. That would not be rational.
You sounded a little reasonable. Let me note that then you should really speak of mental disorder. Mental illness disappeared as a medical term in the eighties, with DSM3, under reasonable assumptions about reality. We are at DSM5 now and even your matching of distress and disability to disorder seems questionable to me. For your fun I went out and grabbed some overview text which I will try and paste. A lot of people on this topic here should at least read at least think some about these considerations. I do not know anything but this thought is interesting: the difference between a mental disorder and a spirituUdisorder are not distingishable by behavior or physiology or anatomy.
Oops accidental post.
disorders can be focused at various levels of abstraction.
At the most general level, which considers different approaches in different cultural contexts, a culture or society may formulate a psychiatric condition in seven general ways (Fabrega 2005, p.224):
1) medical/naturalistic phenomenon;
2) spiritual/religious phenomenon;
3) malevolent/villainous phenomenon;
4) nonauthentic or malingered/fictive pheno- menon;
5) phenomenon attributed to external unwar- rantable attack;
6) phenomenon attributed to a warrantable punishment for wrongdoing;
7) a phenomenon resulting from faulty habits or moral predicaments.
At an intermediate level, internal to the Western culture, there are different general views about what constitute a disease (in its general sense, which enclose mental disorders). Under the influence of the work of Albert et al. (1988), these general views may be grouped as follows:
1) nominalism: a disease is what a profession or society labels as such;
2) social idealism: deviation from the social ideal of health;
3) statistical: deviation from the statistical norms;
4) realism: lesion and/or dysfunction of a biological organ or system.
At the same level is Rounsaville et al.â(TM)s
(2002) work, which considers:
1) sociopolitical;
2) biomedical;
3) combined biomedical and sociopolitical;
4) ostensive types of definition of âoedisease or disorderâ.
The present paper will start focusing on a third level, internal to psychopathology, trying to answer to questions such as the followings:
a) Why the DSM authors decided to use
I'll gladly assist for a pint of Irish Red ;)
"Trying to apply rules from Leviticus to modern Christians is like trying to apply proper care of your horse to driving an electric hybrid."
no its not, thats just your excuse to justify it. So why cherry pick the good bits in Leviticus and other poisonous books, why not remove these books from the bible which is supposed to be Gods word? The religious spin more than politicians and artists
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
OK ; here's the challenge you so plainly want. Your tools are a rather limp jam sandwich and a pair of pink pom-pom slippers ; how are you going to turn them into weapons.
(The selection is not arbitrary ; this selection of items was a key plot element in a 1980s game.)
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Stalin treated people with ideologies he disagreed with as mentally ill, and even put them in sanitariums sometimes.
It's really chilling to see people with that attitude in the 21st Century.
What did he say that made you so angry that you had to use profanity?
Only an idiot:
a) tries to anthropomorphize "God",
b) reads an allegorical text in a literal fashion.
As Rabbi Simeon said:
and Theologians Moses Maimonedes says the same thing:
> For his own glory he condemns billions to eternal torment
[Citation Chapter/Verse]
> drowns millions of innocent beasts and thousands of children
*sigh* Why are you hung up on the absurdity of the literal interpretation. You do realize what water symbolizes right?
The Bible was _intentionaly_ written to contain absurdities so you would stop being a stupid gentile and start the process of opening your mind instead of being delusional in thinking "you already know." The beginning of wisdom _begins_ when you realize You Don't Know.
> restricts the normal expression of the sexual function
1. Define "normal"
2. [Citation Chapter/Verse]
3. You do realize _men_ wrote the Bible right?
> That God does what he wants, when he wants, without even an attempt at self-justification, and all for what reason?
In contradistinction to the human that attempts to judge "god" on what he "thinks" an infinite Source "should" be or not be doing right?
Get over your arrogance.
Your consciousness is like that of a worm trying to understand why the human is tilling to soil to grow crops. You don't have a valid frame of reference to judge an infinite Consciousness. After you die you will realize your human stupidity.
--
Religion: One man telling another man what he should do to develop his relationship with The Source.
Spirituality: One man telling another man what he could do to develop his relationship with The Source.
> Does he want children to starve to death because he loves them?
So what are you doing to feed them? If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
What part of Free Will do you not understand?
Or do you just bitch about everyone's else Free Will when they obviously lack compassion for their fellow brothers and sisters.
Why are you unable to respect another person's Free Will?
When your child breaks your rules you still love them inspite of the pain and suffering they bring upon themselves. Humans are akin to spiritual children.
> or ate a gdamn piece of fruit he arbitrarily decided they couldn't -- because I'm too blind to understand the Allegorical and Spiritual nature of the Bible and keep falling for the absurd literal meaning..
FTFY. All your ranting is summarized above.
Even Yeshua/Jesus said in Luke 9:60: 'Jesus told him, "Let the spiritually dead bury their own dead! '
> I personally would prefer to have been born in a world without any transitory suffering, but I'm not entirely sure such a perfect world is actually logically possible.
It is but then you wouldn't have Free Will. As Neo said in The Matrix: "The problem is Choice."
After you cross over (after death) you will find your Peace but you will also notice that you "lost" your Free Will because you are in tune with Divine Will.
That's part of the "charm" that makes Earth special. We are given the gift of Free Will -- to use or to (sadly) abuse.
=D I like you
schizofuckinphrenia
actually its about %10. people praying at work and school and disrupting the peace, and the missionaries and priests doing fucked up shit oh im not going there
I like this Jesus guy, he was cool and so sweet and caring to people. But these people that say they follow him are assholes. DID YOU MISS A FUCKING MEMO OR SOMETHING!?
thats a good point. a lot of it is learned. people with real mental disorders are rare. but then and there again, your definition of typically learned and culturally reinforced brings up personality disorder.
Imagine what we have now, but without any good in the world. Imagine if people had no moral reason to do anything but look out for themselves. Imagine if all we did is what we could to get ahead at any cost to others. Then imagine a world where that was everyone. How much "weeping and gnashing of teeth" do you expect there would be? According to the Bible, that is the world without God. It doesn't take God punishing anyone, according to the Bible, that would just be our natural state.
I reason that if I do good for myself, my family, my community and so on in a widening circle that eventually includes the whole planet, that life will be better for all involved. I don't need any vague promises of eternal reward or fear of eternal torment to see that.
since both parties are populits basterds
it would be a shame thought the only person from equador i met so far was really nice unless she lied about her
origin
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4117625&cid=44668899 where though you point out old IE builds bugs (IE 11 exists free/no bugs) it's easily gotten around. With Win7 only 2 remote bugs (environment strings/dao) that are easily manually fixed or have free better alternatives!
(Where only 1 app, an Apple product no less, exploits 1 and data middleware that's old that has more able replacements).
You fail!
Fact: You're the hypocrite whose methods were used against him to greater harm to your "evidences" by far (26 total in only 2 examples) in that link above.
( By the way: How's Linux doing @ NASDAQ this week? Not good http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/22/nasdaq-shutdown_n_3798675.html )