Carthago delenda est. That's really all that needs to be said.
Who the hell would want to take over another culture? Then you have these people who are extremely different from you, and then you have to try and rule them so that you get the maximum efficiency from it -- ie, try not to be so cruel as to spark rebelion (ie, England v Ireland), but firm enough that they don't start getting ideas (England v India). It's easier if you just kill everyone. Leaving a defeated enemy to fester is just asking for trouble. 3 Punic Wars and 2 World Wars ought to be proof enough.
Ironically, I'm also a member of the British Druid Order (although I'll never progress past the level of bard because I cannot memorize 300 poems in Welsh).
But there is hell in the bible. Jesus talks about hell. Jesus went to hell for 3 days. No, I don't sit around reading the bible. it's boreing and for protestants. Besides, I have one in english and 2 in Latin. I can't really find the english one, and my latin is none so good (2nd semseter latin student)
Well, compulsary military service is a Good Thing (tm). I firmly believe that every man must do his part in the defense of his country, and honestly, I think it should be a qualification for voting. If people are not willing to fight for their country, then they should not have a say in how it's going to be run. Everyone in my family since we have been in America has served except my father, and it pisses me off. I'm a junior in college and I am putting in my OCS application next fall for the Army.
I am absolutly willing to put my money where my mouth is and die for what I believe in, which is, something which this country has been lacking since the stupid hippie sixties. I find it disgraceful.
On the other hand, the Swiss got their asses handed to them by Caesar which is what started the Gallic Wars. On the other hand, their wholesale slaughter at the hands of the Romans solved their population problem and enabled them to remain in Helvetia (Switzerland -.CH - Helvetian Confederation. Celts as well)
I new I liked Switzerland for some reason... other than its absolutly beautiful, particularly around lake genva. I like Losan (though I cannot spell it because it's French). Zurich is not particularly nice, but it is rather neat.
Christ's purpose was to wash away original sin, near as I can tell. And I was baptised anyway, which is the sort of magic method for doing it.
But quite frankly, if I didn't fear hell, there would be nothing keeping me from dealing drugs to kids, raping their mothers, and killing their fathers. I'd have no interest in the future. Why would I care? No god? Sweet. No heaven? Then my grandparents will never know that I didn't have kids and let 2 lines die out. Who cares? not me. Why bother cleaning up the environment? I don't give a shit, no being fruitful and multiplying for me. by the time the shit hits the fan, i'll be dead. Why not genetically engineer slaves? Who's to say it's wrong? Without an absolute good (God), then there is no standard by which to judge good and evil.
The point is, the natural state of man is but a beast. Without a sense that there is something perfect that is better than us and has an interest in us, then we really have no reason to do anything but be out for our selves and our own immediate pleasures.
Well, sir, that's a very nice eastern sentiment you have there, but I'm Irish-Catholic. I've had guilt beaten into me since I was little. I'm frankly ashamed to live. I try to live as right as I can, but I break at least 2 commandments a week anyway. There is plague and suffering and death all around us. Enlightenment may help me see a divine justice or order, but I am but a man. I am by nature incapeable of rising above that limitation and seeing the world as God sees it. You have a very nice philosphy there, if you really believe it and it's not just a counter-argument, and I hope it brings you fulfillment. I, on the other hand, do what I am going to do. We shall leave it at that, I think.
The Roman Republic was perfect government, in my eyes. However, they mismanaged the military and that lead to civil war and eventually the Principate.
Honestly, I do not see what was so bad about Fascist Italy. Unlike the National Socialists, they had no racial policy. It wasn't until there were German soldiers IN ITALY that the deportation of Jews began. People where just expected to do their duty to the state. Economically, "Authoritarian Corportaism" is really a lot like the guild system of places liek Florence and Sienna. They flourished under this system, where the guilds (or "corporations") were vertical trade unions binding management and labour, they kept their industry under controll, but then used that for the glorification of their guild and their city. The Duomo (the cathedral in Florence) is absolutly beautiful and would likely never have been built if not for the Guilds. Hell, if it weren't for the Di Medici the Uffizi gallery wouldn't be there and we'd really be missing out.
Mussolini harkened back to this for the management of the economy (Fascism actually grew out of socilism originally), and the Romans for his wish to be the new Augustus. The core underpinning of beliefe, however, which truely separates the Fascists from the Marxists is that Fascists do not believe in economic motivation. it's a heroic motivation. People should do their duty and strive to be the best. Take the Romans, for instance. Crassus was the richest man in Rome, but had no 'virtus' - manly virtue has defined by service to the State. Caesar was poor but he had lots of virtus, and thus gained much 'gloria.' It's a theory which actually carried over to Nazism (a different beast entirely), only the coralary there would be Beowulf, or more specifically the Tuetonic Knights who where a source of inspriation to the double Sig (SS). Marxists on the other hand interpret all of history has an economic struggle. They try and revise the acts of the brothers Graci. It simply is not so.
So, yes, I would defend a State in which everyone is duty bound by honour to do their part for the Glory of the State, the motivation being personal glory for themselves and the whole of their society. It fosters and intense sense of community which is a breeding ground for cooperation and thus the "progress" which Slashdotters so wish to see. If we had no Democracy, then C. Julius Caesar Octaviani Augustus with the Tribunition power for the 7th time, Consulship for the 5th time, hailed as Imperator for the 7th time, Pontifex Maximus, First Among Equals, could simply declare "We will have a space elevator" and it would happen. We wouldn't have to debate about where the money "should" be spent. Hell, there wouldn't even really have to be money. It'd just get done. And that seems to be a reason why lately people have been taking up for China around here (if China didn't call themselves Communist, and if I weren't a pasty ass Paddy in America and actually cared what went on over there, I might be inclined to root for them).
I don't give a shit about all states equally. I care about the Commonwealth of Virginia. I, and my father's father's before me have been here sine Cromwell kicked us out of Co Cork in 1640. it is my home. I have little in common with people in California. I don't want them to decide my life in any way. The common interest is all the federal government is for. The President shouldn't even have an agenda. He shouldn't be a "leader." He should stay within the constitution. That said, I think we have not had a good one since Andrew Jackson ruined the whole concept of the Presidency based on my criteria (the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers). I do have a soft spot for Reagan, but only 'cause he killed the Soviet Union.
This is not a unitary country and it never should be. Hell, i'd probably be happier if each State were a country. It'd be like Europe then.
the Electoral College prevents people from just appealing to the States with the most votes. Remember, the Federal Government did not create the States, the States created the Federal Government. This is not a unitary country like Ireland or something. it's a federation of the several states. The Electoral College is an insitution which preserves this and is a founding principle. Further, the States dont even have to allow people to vote for anything but the House of Representatives. State Legislatures could just throw up whatever votes for the College they wanted to and it would be perfectly constitutional. Democracy is stupid and dangerous. Look at the French Revolution.
Yes, i think your right. My friend, when he gets drunk, will like, feel up chicks and stuff -- and they let him get away with it "because he's gay" so he's "harmless."
However, there is then the problem of the Greeks. However, they are easily understood in the context that to them, women were nothing. They were not citizens, they were not equal, they were property there to make more children. They were week and probably concidered stupid most of the time. Men then turned to men for pleasure and companionship because they were equals.
However, the Romans did not want anything to do with that Greek gayness. Durrin the Republic, when Greek wrestlers where brought to Rome, they had to wear clothes instead of competeing naked like they would have in Greece.
dude, i don't have anything to do. I have 4 literature classe and latin this semster. it's not much work, all things concidered. I just make random arguments. I don't really give a shit. I think apathy is probably the secret to happiness, because it's sure as hell not the drink or women.
yeah. but why? and why, out of all of infinite space, would all the things come together HERE of all places for life? And why in such varity? It's mind-blowing. Sure, it may have happened other places also, but we havent found them yet. Maybe we never will? what then?
well, it does breed illness, I would say. It makes AIDS and heptitis and stuff a lot easier to get (dermal membrane up the ass easily ruptured) Frankly, I just say it's a sin because I think it's absolutly disgusting. The whole concept anal sex is just not cool at all.
Also, homosexuality is lumped in with a lot of other sexual sins. The thing is, sex is for reproduction. God said, "Go forth and multiply" -- it was his first commandment, even before "i am the lord thy god and you shall have no other gods before me." There is a story in the old testiment where a man dies without children, and his brother is then by law supposed to marry his wife and have kids with her and bring them up in his brother's name. He has sex with her, but does not cum inside of her. "spilling his seed" as they call it, breaks the law, dishonours his brother, and is also the rational behind saying masturbation is evil.
But, aside from breaking the law of God (which most people here don't give a shit about anyway), and spreading disease and stuff, for some reason there is a reluctance to call it a disease. It is more of a "condition," maybe, like dwarfism, if it's genetic at all. But people try and claime genetic component to legitimize what is otherwise a perversion that less than 10% of the people in the world do, and try and call it "normal" and "natural." Well, i'm waiting for someone to try and claim a genetic predisoposstion to pedopheilia. "hey! it's genetics! i can't help it, i was born this way!" Well, Mary had Christ at the age of 13 and joesph was already like, 30+. So, we have there that God knocked up at 13 year old girl, and she was married to a middle-aged dude (Actually, rather old for those times). So, that behaviour has been legitimized in the bible, where as homosexuality is not. However, today gays are being legitimized and pedophiles are going to prison. Other than the law, I don't see why it should be wrong for like, a 14 year old girl and a 20 year old guy to hook up, for instance. It's only been in the 20th century that it's been frowned upon. Roman girls sometimes married as early as 7 (usually waiting until 13, on average) to husbands anywhere from 14 and up. Elizabeth I was paraded naked in front of potential suiters at the age of 8 (some claim this is why she never got married). I suspect such practices still go on in large portions of the world.
I'm not making the case that pedophiles are not evil, just that we can't have one perversion be a crime and the other be accepted. Quite frankly, a 15 year old girl knows damned well what she wants, and it's not usually a 15 year old boy. the whole "consenting adults" thing may fly for like, s&m, but any "un natural sex act" is usually covered by sodomy laws, and thus that is also probably illegal.
But I don't really care about old testiment jewish law. like i said, anal sex is repugnant. that's probably why it's against the law in the book anyway. But my friend mentioned in the original post can do what ever the hell he wants to, just so long as I don't have to look at it.
A priest could confess to another priest. And I'm not saying Hitler would have had to force the priest to absolve him. That is not the case. The priest would have given absolution. I'm saying, we don't know if he confessed or not. I doubt it. The man, while having grown up Catholic, was quoted as having said, "The revolution cannot be compleated until we destroy Christianity. This generation is lost to us."
last rights and requiem masses. intercession of saints. but yeah, suicide is not cool. I like to try and forget about that one because I've lost many friends to it.
neither science nor religion will paint a perfect picture. Philosophy, from which both grew out of, would. Religion is stupid in the face of Plato's theory of forms, as any God we can concieve of is merely a shadow of a perfect God we're too low to recognize. Science is "natural philosophy" -- today we are a far cry from Pliny the Elder, but it's still an attempt to say how the world works, just as other branches try and tell us the "whys" and "hows" of other things.
But the general and special relativity theories combine with the laws of motion, into a way which i would say proves predestination if one thinks about it right. If energy and matter are interchangebale, and all of it's linked together, and everything moves in predictable fashion, and their is only so much matter/enegery in the universe, than from the moment of creation (big bang), every particle and wave has been moving on a course which can be charted. Theoretically, we could know everyhing which will ever happen and has ever happened if we could track everything bit in the universe. Free will would then just be an illusion. Just like billiard balls, everything's movement effects the particles it touches next. that includes the chemicals in our brains every bit as much as the asteroids in space. But that's not fun to think about, not that we really have a choice:-)
well, having never died myself, I don't know if it works or not. I'm just saying that it's meaningless to ask for forgivness if you're not really sorry for your actions, whether you ask God, the Judge, or your wife. If you're not truely penetent then you'll probably do it again, whether it be leaving the seat up or committing genocide. (note: i'm not saying their the same, merely two extremes on a scale to illustrate the point).
"your name is Peter and you are the rock upon which I will build my Church" -- Peter was the first Pope. "Whatsoever you shall hold true on Earth I shall hold true in Heaven" -- The rules of the Church are honoured by God.
I went to college to study Biology and Computer Science. my first job out of high school was at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility programming the beam viewers for the Free Electron Laser in C on Linux systems. But I didn't love it. I got a 4 on the AP Bio exam. But I didn't love it. That's why I'm an English major. But I say that to say, yes, I understand the concepts of Science. However, it is utterly inconcievable to me that/randomly/ chemicls would just align themselves into DNA and randomly that would cause other chemicals to build other chemicals into structures in which to hold the DNA. It's absurd. My family has been Catholic since St Patrick. My cousin is a franciscan Priest. It gives me a "why," if not a "how" -- God works through the laws of the nature he created. But understanding the laws does not tell us why they are that way, just how they work. This is a failing of Science. Of course, lacking a "how" is a failing of Religion.
the point of Christianity is that there IS NO SUCH THING as an unforgivable sin. You just have to ask forgiveness (the sacrement of confession, which is done to a priest individually for Catholics (me), and usually as part of the mass as a congregation for protestants). However, when one knows that they do is a sin and repeatedly do it, asking for forgiveness doesn't really have the same weight. It's like, multiple offender thing in the court system. For instance, it's a venial sin to masturbate. But if you keep doing it even if you know its wrong, it becomes a mortal sin. Mortal sins send you straight to hell (if you don't get last rights and that sort of thing) if you haven't confessed them. Venial sins are not so bad.
For instance, yes, theoretically, Hitler could have confessed his sins, been given absolution, and gone to heaven. But not bloody likely, of course any actual "documentation" of the last hours must be suspect in its truth. If a gay person keeps on keeping doing gayness and doesn't ever feel remorse or confess his sins, then yeah, that's hell-bound. If he does, it's not hellbound, likely.
What Christians need to realize is that the Old Testiment and the Jewish laws were pretty much done away with by Christ. There is a new set of laws. Do what he said, and that's fine. He never mentioned gays in the new testement. I don't know what the rules are. Old Testement God was a hard-core bad-ass who killed people. New Testement God is not. Yes, Jesus talks about hell. Yes, I believe there is hell (that Stalin and St Francis would meet the same fate is not something I wish to believe. It makes no sense).
Now, does the fact that Christ did away with it mean that sin isn't there anymore? No, there is sin. But a lot of the shit in the old testiment is just bullshit. Like Kosher. No one is going to go to hell for eating pork. Kosher makes sense in the days before refridgeration and stuff, but now it does not. Et cetera.
Do I think gayness is wrong? Yes, absolutly. But my best friend is gay. Do I believe God created the universe and everything in it? Yes. But Genisis is more of a poem on creation. I believe it may have been divinly inspired (I am a poet and English major and I do believe in muses and things because whether it's a literal thing or not, the principle is sound), but it is not literal truth. Even the notes in the new bible I bought last year (my old family bibles are like, 200 years old and I don't like to handle them) say not to take Genisis seriously (Catholic bible).
The point is that God loves us, Christ died for us, and because of that all sins are forgiven. But as it also is said, "God helps those who help themselves" -- ie, one must ask to be forgiven. It's like how showing remorse effects sentencing phases in trials. In fact, it's exactly the same. Last time I went to confession was a month ago in St Peter's in Rome. In the part of the Priest's schpele were he tells you your penence, part of it is "for your own peace of mind" -- people have a need to confess otherwise guilt builds up. This is a kind of hell. So, whether one believes in an afterlife or not, yes, telling the priest what you've done does help your own peace of mind and makes you feel better. Guilt weighs heavily.
It's lent. I ate meat on Friday. I'm Catholic. I should be going to hell like a fag according to ultra-radical militant puritan fucks in this country who take shit way too seriously. Boo Fucking Hoo. I can go to confession and get away with it. But it's not like the methodist-affiliated college I go to is going to serve fish on friday for 6 weeks to make me feel better.
I heard a Palestinian once say that if only they had one Michael Collins, Israel would be gone in a week. But there never has been another Michael Collins, which is why Ireland is still partitioned. The Palestinians never got their Collins. The Israelies never really had theirs, their fight for independence from the british being rather hap-hazard (if you can believe it, Zionists actually tried to allign themselves with NS Germany against the British in order to obtain a Jewish state. There were many Nazi leaders who where into the idea in order to just put the Jews someplace, but the idea didn't carry enough weight). Bin Laden is no Collins.
The man orchistrated the assassination of all the major British intelligence agents in Dublin in a single day, causing them to go blind, effectively, and lash out more irrationally than usual. This caused lack of popular support on the British side as well as outrage from abroad helping to end a nearly 800-years long war, for the most part, within 2 years of his taking command of counter-intelligence of the IRA (also, finance minister for the Provisional Republican government). His death in the civil war in 1922 is really what fucked up the whole situation and why there is still shit going on in the North (although, it appears to have largely died down 'cause its retarded).
The point is, yeah, I agree with you. We produce some damned fine "terrorists" ourselves. But for some people, they are patriots and heros. "western" values became an anachronism with the reformation. There is a lack of continuity and cohesiveness in what used to be called "christaindom." So, yes, we produce terrorists, but there is a lack of values within our own areas which is why. If people believe their cost is just, they will do what is necessary. Al Quaeda believes their cause is just. McVeigh believed his cause was just. The only difference is that McVeigh didn't believe it was his duty as a Catholic, but his duty under the Declaration of Independence.
well, it's summer sessions. she's a high school spanish teacher (also has taught latin and french). she's done one seven week session, and has 2 more to go. I study English and History, which is all irrelvenet to the career i'm hoping for as an armoured cavalry officer. OCS application next fall and hopefully off after graduation.
But, being of Irish extraction, and intensly interested in Celtic history and culture, the languages have been an object of interest for me as well. Irish Gaelic is actually, so I hear from people who know better than I do, similar to Basque. I suspect it might be true, as there are genetically similarities too, with the Basques. The P-celtic and Q-Celtic (I believe are the strains) divide the Welsh/Cornish/Manx/Breton/Gallic (Gaul -- France) languages and the Irish/Scotch languages (Scots having come from Ireland, deplacing the Picts). It seems that Irish are not actually Celts, from studies, so much as the Gaels are something different. However, they seem to have BECOME what people think of as Celts, as opposed to Halstat or La Tene culture. The Book of Invasions says that the Milasians (Gaels) came from Northern Spain to Ireland. The genetic studies i've seen support that, as well as cultural studies, saying that the Iberians, who came from Northern Africa, but who were non-black, non-arab, came to Spain (Iberian Peninsula), mixed with thte basques and absorbed some of their language as well as some peripheral Celtic culture, pre-La Tene, and then took it Ireland. But it's all highly irrelevent for Slashdot, I guess.
well, Gallego is not Spanish. My mother is working on her masters in Santiago De Composetella in Spanish (Romance Language major at Princeton, class of 1977) and is picking it up some. Breton (the language in Brittany) seems almost irradicated. Basque is the truely interesting thing though.
Slashdot Mirror
Carthago delenda est. That's really all that needs to be said.
Who the hell would want to take over another culture? Then you have these people who are extremely different from you, and then you have to try and rule them so that you get the maximum efficiency from it -- ie, try not to be so cruel as to spark rebelion (ie, England v Ireland), but firm enough that they don't start getting ideas (England v India). It's easier if you just kill everyone. Leaving a defeated enemy to fester is just asking for trouble. 3 Punic Wars and 2 World Wars ought to be proof enough.
Ironically, I'm also a member of the British Druid Order (although I'll never progress past the level of bard because I cannot memorize 300 poems in Welsh). But there is hell in the bible. Jesus talks about hell. Jesus went to hell for 3 days. No, I don't sit around reading the bible. it's boreing and for protestants. Besides, I have one in english and 2 in Latin. I can't really find the english one, and my latin is none so good (2nd semseter latin student)
Well, compulsary military service is a Good Thing (tm). I firmly believe that every man must do his part in the defense of his country, and honestly, I think it should be a qualification for voting. If people are not willing to fight for their country, then they should not have a say in how it's going to be run. Everyone in my family since we have been in America has served except my father, and it pisses me off. I'm a junior in college and I am putting in my OCS application next fall for the Army.
.CH - Helvetian Confederation. Celts as well)
I am absolutly willing to put my money where my mouth is and die for what I believe in, which is, something which this country has been lacking since the stupid hippie sixties. I find it disgraceful.
On the other hand, the Swiss got their asses handed to them by Caesar which is what started the Gallic Wars. On the other hand, their wholesale slaughter at the hands of the Romans solved their population problem and enabled them to remain in Helvetia (Switzerland -
I new I liked Switzerland for some reason... other than its absolutly beautiful, particularly around lake genva. I like Losan (though I cannot spell it because it's French). Zurich is not particularly nice, but it is rather neat.
Christ's purpose was to wash away original sin, near as I can tell. And I was baptised anyway, which is the sort of magic method for doing it.
But quite frankly, if I didn't fear hell, there would be nothing keeping me from dealing drugs to kids, raping their mothers, and killing their fathers. I'd have no interest in the future. Why would I care? No god? Sweet. No heaven? Then my grandparents will never know that I didn't have kids and let 2 lines die out. Who cares? not me. Why bother cleaning up the environment? I don't give a shit, no being fruitful and multiplying for me. by the time the shit hits the fan, i'll be dead. Why not genetically engineer slaves? Who's to say it's wrong? Without an absolute good (God), then there is no standard by which to judge good and evil.
The point is, the natural state of man is but a beast. Without a sense that there is something perfect that is better than us and has an interest in us, then we really have no reason to do anything but be out for our selves and our own immediate pleasures.
Well, sir, that's a very nice eastern sentiment you have there, but I'm Irish-Catholic. I've had guilt beaten into me since I was little. I'm frankly ashamed to live. I try to live as right as I can, but I break at least 2 commandments a week anyway. There is plague and suffering and death all around us. Enlightenment may help me see a divine justice or order, but I am but a man. I am by nature incapeable of rising above that limitation and seeing the world as God sees it. You have a very nice philosphy there, if you really believe it and it's not just a counter-argument, and I hope it brings you fulfillment. I, on the other hand, do what I am going to do. We shall leave it at that, I think.
The Roman Republic was perfect government, in my eyes. However, they mismanaged the military and that lead to civil war and eventually the Principate. Honestly, I do not see what was so bad about Fascist Italy. Unlike the National Socialists, they had no racial policy. It wasn't until there were German soldiers IN ITALY that the deportation of Jews began. People where just expected to do their duty to the state. Economically, "Authoritarian Corportaism" is really a lot like the guild system of places liek Florence and Sienna. They flourished under this system, where the guilds (or "corporations") were vertical trade unions binding management and labour, they kept their industry under controll, but then used that for the glorification of their guild and their city. The Duomo (the cathedral in Florence) is absolutly beautiful and would likely never have been built if not for the Guilds. Hell, if it weren't for the Di Medici the Uffizi gallery wouldn't be there and we'd really be missing out. Mussolini harkened back to this for the management of the economy (Fascism actually grew out of socilism originally), and the Romans for his wish to be the new Augustus. The core underpinning of beliefe, however, which truely separates the Fascists from the Marxists is that Fascists do not believe in economic motivation. it's a heroic motivation. People should do their duty and strive to be the best. Take the Romans, for instance. Crassus was the richest man in Rome, but had no 'virtus' - manly virtue has defined by service to the State. Caesar was poor but he had lots of virtus, and thus gained much 'gloria.' It's a theory which actually carried over to Nazism (a different beast entirely), only the coralary there would be Beowulf, or more specifically the Tuetonic Knights who where a source of inspriation to the double Sig (SS). Marxists on the other hand interpret all of history has an economic struggle. They try and revise the acts of the brothers Graci. It simply is not so. So, yes, I would defend a State in which everyone is duty bound by honour to do their part for the Glory of the State, the motivation being personal glory for themselves and the whole of their society. It fosters and intense sense of community which is a breeding ground for cooperation and thus the "progress" which Slashdotters so wish to see. If we had no Democracy, then C. Julius Caesar Octaviani Augustus with the Tribunition power for the 7th time, Consulship for the 5th time, hailed as Imperator for the 7th time, Pontifex Maximus, First Among Equals, could simply declare "We will have a space elevator" and it would happen. We wouldn't have to debate about where the money "should" be spent. Hell, there wouldn't even really have to be money. It'd just get done. And that seems to be a reason why lately people have been taking up for China around here (if China didn't call themselves Communist, and if I weren't a pasty ass Paddy in America and actually cared what went on over there, I might be inclined to root for them).
I don't give a shit about all states equally. I care about the Commonwealth of Virginia. I, and my father's father's before me have been here sine Cromwell kicked us out of Co Cork in 1640. it is my home. I have little in common with people in California. I don't want them to decide my life in any way. The common interest is all the federal government is for. The President shouldn't even have an agenda. He shouldn't be a "leader." He should stay within the constitution. That said, I think we have not had a good one since Andrew Jackson ruined the whole concept of the Presidency based on my criteria (the Constitution and the writings of the founding fathers). I do have a soft spot for Reagan, but only 'cause he killed the Soviet Union. This is not a unitary country and it never should be. Hell, i'd probably be happier if each State were a country. It'd be like Europe then.
the Electoral College prevents people from just appealing to the States with the most votes. Remember, the Federal Government did not create the States, the States created the Federal Government. This is not a unitary country like Ireland or something. it's a federation of the several states. The Electoral College is an insitution which preserves this and is a founding principle. Further, the States dont even have to allow people to vote for anything but the House of Representatives. State Legislatures could just throw up whatever votes for the College they wanted to and it would be perfectly constitutional. Democracy is stupid and dangerous. Look at the French Revolution.
Yes, i think your right. My friend, when he gets drunk, will like, feel up chicks and stuff -- and they let him get away with it "because he's gay" so he's "harmless."
However, there is then the problem of the Greeks. However, they are easily understood in the context that to them, women were nothing. They were not citizens, they were not equal, they were property there to make more children. They were week and probably concidered stupid most of the time. Men then turned to men for pleasure and companionship because they were equals.
However, the Romans did not want anything to do with that Greek gayness. Durrin the Republic, when Greek wrestlers where brought to Rome, they had to wear clothes instead of competeing naked like they would have in Greece.
dude, i don't have anything to do. I have 4 literature classe and latin this semster. it's not much work, all things concidered. I just make random arguments. I don't really give a shit. I think apathy is probably the secret to happiness, because it's sure as hell not the drink or women.
yeah. but why? and why, out of all of infinite space, would all the things come together HERE of all places for life? And why in such varity? It's mind-blowing. Sure, it may have happened other places also, but we havent found them yet. Maybe we never will? what then?
eating those foods puts the things out the ass, not into it.
well, it does breed illness, I would say. It makes AIDS and heptitis and stuff a lot easier to get (dermal membrane up the ass easily ruptured) Frankly, I just say it's a sin because I think it's absolutly disgusting. The whole concept anal sex is just not cool at all.
Also, homosexuality is lumped in with a lot of other sexual sins. The thing is, sex is for reproduction. God said, "Go forth and multiply" -- it was his first commandment, even before "i am the lord thy god and you shall have no other gods before me." There is a story in the old testiment where a man dies without children, and his brother is then by law supposed to marry his wife and have kids with her and bring them up in his brother's name. He has sex with her, but does not cum inside of her. "spilling his seed" as they call it, breaks the law, dishonours his brother, and is also the rational behind saying masturbation is evil.
But, aside from breaking the law of God (which most people here don't give a shit about anyway), and spreading disease and stuff, for some reason there is a reluctance to call it a disease. It is more of a "condition," maybe, like dwarfism, if it's genetic at all. But people try and claime genetic component to legitimize what is otherwise a perversion that less than 10% of the people in the world do, and try and call it "normal" and "natural." Well, i'm waiting for someone to try and claim a genetic predisoposstion to pedopheilia. "hey! it's genetics! i can't help it, i was born this way!" Well, Mary had Christ at the age of 13 and joesph was already like, 30+. So, we have there that God knocked up at 13 year old girl, and she was married to a middle-aged dude (Actually, rather old for those times). So, that behaviour has been legitimized in the bible, where as homosexuality is not. However, today gays are being legitimized and pedophiles are going to prison. Other than the law, I don't see why it should be wrong for like, a 14 year old girl and a 20 year old guy to hook up, for instance. It's only been in the 20th century that it's been frowned upon. Roman girls sometimes married as early as 7 (usually waiting until 13, on average) to husbands anywhere from 14 and up. Elizabeth I was paraded naked in front of potential suiters at the age of 8 (some claim this is why she never got married). I suspect such practices still go on in large portions of the world.
I'm not making the case that pedophiles are not evil, just that we can't have one perversion be a crime and the other be accepted. Quite frankly, a 15 year old girl knows damned well what she wants, and it's not usually a 15 year old boy. the whole "consenting adults" thing may fly for like, s&m, but any "un natural sex act" is usually covered by sodomy laws, and thus that is also probably illegal.
But I don't really care about old testiment jewish law. like i said, anal sex is repugnant. that's probably why it's against the law in the book anyway. But my friend mentioned in the original post can do what ever the hell he wants to, just so long as I don't have to look at it.
bumper cars are hardly a model for anything which one wishes to have taken seriously.
A priest could confess to another priest. And I'm not saying Hitler would have had to force the priest to absolve him. That is not the case. The priest would have given absolution. I'm saying, we don't know if he confessed or not. I doubt it. The man, while having grown up Catholic, was quoted as having said, "The revolution cannot be compleated until we destroy Christianity. This generation is lost to us."
last rights and requiem masses. intercession of saints. but yeah, suicide is not cool. I like to try and forget about that one because I've lost many friends to it.
neither science nor religion will paint a perfect picture. Philosophy, from which both grew out of, would. Religion is stupid in the face of Plato's theory of forms, as any God we can concieve of is merely a shadow of a perfect God we're too low to recognize. Science is "natural philosophy" -- today we are a far cry from Pliny the Elder, but it's still an attempt to say how the world works, just as other branches try and tell us the "whys" and "hows" of other things.
:-)
But the general and special relativity theories combine with the laws of motion, into a way which i would say proves predestination if one thinks about it right. If energy and matter are interchangebale, and all of it's linked together, and everything moves in predictable fashion, and their is only so much matter/enegery in the universe, than from the moment of creation (big bang), every particle and wave has been moving on a course which can be charted. Theoretically, we could know everyhing which will ever happen and has ever happened if we could track everything bit in the universe. Free will would then just be an illusion. Just like billiard balls, everything's movement effects the particles it touches next. that includes the chemicals in our brains every bit as much as the asteroids in space. But that's not fun to think about, not that we really have a choice
well, having never died myself, I don't know if it works or not. I'm just saying that it's meaningless to ask for forgivness if you're not really sorry for your actions, whether you ask God, the Judge, or your wife. If you're not truely penetent then you'll probably do it again, whether it be leaving the seat up or committing genocide. (note: i'm not saying their the same, merely two extremes on a scale to illustrate the point).
"your name is Peter and you are the rock upon which I will build my Church" -- Peter was the first Pope. "Whatsoever you shall hold true on Earth I shall hold true in Heaven" -- The rules of the Church are honoured by God. I went to college to study Biology and Computer Science. my first job out of high school was at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility programming the beam viewers for the Free Electron Laser in C on Linux systems. But I didn't love it. I got a 4 on the AP Bio exam. But I didn't love it. That's why I'm an English major. But I say that to say, yes, I understand the concepts of Science. However, it is utterly inconcievable to me that /randomly/ chemicls would just align themselves into DNA and randomly that would cause other chemicals to build other chemicals into structures in which to hold the DNA. It's absurd. My family has been Catholic since St Patrick. My cousin is a franciscan Priest. It gives me a "why," if not a "how" -- God works through the laws of the nature he created. But understanding the laws does not tell us why they are that way, just how they work. This is a failing of Science. Of course, lacking a "how" is a failing of Religion.
and I think he's a hippie. But we get along fine.
the point of Christianity is that there IS NO SUCH THING as an unforgivable sin. You just have to ask forgiveness (the sacrement of confession, which is done to a priest individually for Catholics (me), and usually as part of the mass as a congregation for protestants). However, when one knows that they do is a sin and repeatedly do it, asking for forgiveness doesn't really have the same weight. It's like, multiple offender thing in the court system. For instance, it's a venial sin to masturbate. But if you keep doing it even if you know its wrong, it becomes a mortal sin. Mortal sins send you straight to hell (if you don't get last rights and that sort of thing) if you haven't confessed them. Venial sins are not so bad.
For instance, yes, theoretically, Hitler could have confessed his sins, been given absolution, and gone to heaven. But not bloody likely, of course any actual "documentation" of the last hours must be suspect in its truth. If a gay person keeps on keeping doing gayness and doesn't ever feel remorse or confess his sins, then yeah, that's hell-bound. If he does, it's not hellbound, likely.
What Christians need to realize is that the Old Testiment and the Jewish laws were pretty much done away with by Christ. There is a new set of laws. Do what he said, and that's fine. He never mentioned gays in the new testement. I don't know what the rules are. Old Testement God was a hard-core bad-ass who killed people. New Testement God is not. Yes, Jesus talks about hell. Yes, I believe there is hell (that Stalin and St Francis would meet the same fate is not something I wish to believe. It makes no sense).
Now, does the fact that Christ did away with it mean that sin isn't there anymore? No, there is sin. But a lot of the shit in the old testiment is just bullshit. Like Kosher. No one is going to go to hell for eating pork. Kosher makes sense in the days before refridgeration and stuff, but now it does not. Et cetera.
Do I think gayness is wrong? Yes, absolutly. But my best friend is gay. Do I believe God created the universe and everything in it? Yes. But Genisis is more of a poem on creation. I believe it may have been divinly inspired (I am a poet and English major and I do believe in muses and things because whether it's a literal thing or not, the principle is sound), but it is not literal truth. Even the notes in the new bible I bought last year (my old family bibles are like, 200 years old and I don't like to handle them) say not to take Genisis seriously (Catholic bible).
The point is that God loves us, Christ died for us, and because of that all sins are forgiven. But as it also is said, "God helps those who help themselves" -- ie, one must ask to be forgiven. It's like how showing remorse effects sentencing phases in trials. In fact, it's exactly the same. Last time I went to confession was a month ago in St Peter's in Rome. In the part of the Priest's schpele were he tells you your penence, part of it is "for your own peace of mind" -- people have a need to confess otherwise guilt builds up. This is a kind of hell. So, whether one believes in an afterlife or not, yes, telling the priest what you've done does help your own peace of mind and makes you feel better. Guilt weighs heavily.
It's lent. I ate meat on Friday. I'm Catholic. I should be going to hell like a fag according to ultra-radical militant puritan fucks in this country who take shit way too seriously. Boo Fucking Hoo. I can go to confession and get away with it. But it's not like the methodist-affiliated college I go to is going to serve fish on friday for 6 weeks to make me feel better.
I heard a Palestinian once say that if only they had one Michael Collins, Israel would be gone in a week. But there never has been another Michael Collins, which is why Ireland is still partitioned. The Palestinians never got their Collins. The Israelies never really had theirs, their fight for independence from the british being rather hap-hazard (if you can believe it, Zionists actually tried to allign themselves with NS Germany against the British in order to obtain a Jewish state. There were many Nazi leaders who where into the idea in order to just put the Jews someplace, but the idea didn't carry enough weight). Bin Laden is no Collins.
The man orchistrated the assassination of all the major British intelligence agents in Dublin in a single day, causing them to go blind, effectively, and lash out more irrationally than usual. This caused lack of popular support on the British side as well as outrage from abroad helping to end a nearly 800-years long war, for the most part, within 2 years of his taking command of counter-intelligence of the IRA (also, finance minister for the Provisional Republican government). His death in the civil war in 1922 is really what fucked up the whole situation and why there is still shit going on in the North (although, it appears to have largely died down 'cause its retarded).
The point is, yeah, I agree with you. We produce some damned fine "terrorists" ourselves. But for some people, they are patriots and heros. "western" values became an anachronism with the reformation. There is a lack of continuity and cohesiveness in what used to be called "christaindom." So, yes, we produce terrorists, but there is a lack of values within our own areas which is why. If people believe their cost is just, they will do what is necessary. Al Quaeda believes their cause is just. McVeigh believed his cause was just. The only difference is that McVeigh didn't believe it was his duty as a Catholic, but his duty under the Declaration of Independence.
well, it's summer sessions. she's a high school spanish teacher (also has taught latin and french). she's done one seven week session, and has 2 more to go. I study English and History, which is all irrelvenet to the career i'm hoping for as an armoured cavalry officer. OCS application next fall and hopefully off after graduation.
But, being of Irish extraction, and intensly interested in Celtic history and culture, the languages have been an object of interest for me as well. Irish Gaelic is actually, so I hear from people who know better than I do, similar to Basque. I suspect it might be true, as there are genetically similarities too, with the Basques. The P-celtic and Q-Celtic (I believe are the strains) divide the Welsh/Cornish/Manx/Breton/Gallic (Gaul -- France) languages and the Irish/Scotch languages (Scots having come from Ireland, deplacing the Picts). It seems that Irish are not actually Celts, from studies, so much as the Gaels are something different. However, they seem to have BECOME what people think of as Celts, as opposed to Halstat or La Tene culture. The Book of Invasions says that the Milasians (Gaels) came from Northern Spain to Ireland. The genetic studies i've seen support that, as well as cultural studies, saying that the Iberians, who came from Northern Africa, but who were non-black, non-arab, came to Spain (Iberian Peninsula), mixed with thte basques and absorbed some of their language as well as some peripheral Celtic culture, pre-La Tene, and then took it Ireland. But it's all highly irrelevent for Slashdot, I guess.
well, Gallego is not Spanish. My mother is working on her masters in Santiago De Composetella in Spanish (Romance Language major at Princeton, class of 1977) and is picking it up some. Breton (the language in Brittany) seems almost irradicated. Basque is the truely interesting thing though.