I would mention that I voted Republican, but they are no better on this issue.
They're actually worse on every issue if you look at what they do rather than just listen to the lies they spout.
Seriously, if you're stupid enough to have voted for a Republican any time in the last 30 years, then you are so far out of touch with reality as to make your opinions meaningless.
Well, unless your only goal is to see the country looted in favor of the oil and weapons industries and turned into a fascist police state. That's the only way you could even be seen as sane if you were stupid, cowardly and treasonous enough to vote for those scum. If you expected anything but that, then you're a fool, plain, simple, and indisputable since there is *nothing* apart from idiotic lies that could have led you to that moronic belief.
While I think the management of the war in Iraq has been pretty poor...I think we pretty much had full UN authority to go into Iraq...due to resolutions like this [un.org] .
Our 'knock' on the their door was the Serious Consequence mentioned in this and other resolutions.
Not to mention, that Saddam never fully complied with the terms of surrender from Gulf War I...so, technically, we were still at war with him.
I think this has been totally mismanaged, but, not unjustified...if he'd have complied fully, he's still be breathing and torturing people in Iraq to this day.
You might have a point if that was in any way related to how this was presented. The traitors of the Bush administration didn't bother to try and use those as arguments to justify an invasion as they already knew it wouldn't work. That's why they dishonestly and with malice aforethought and afore planned intentionally misused the 911 attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq exactly how they stated that they planned on doing back in 2000.
So, trying to defend the worst pack of traitors this country has ever seen based on what might or might not have justified an invasion in your mind is pointless and just demonstrates your complete lack of even the most basic understanding of the issues at hand and their origins.
So if you want to just make up fantasy world scenarios in which an invasion actually was justified, then that's fine. Don't make yourself look stupid by pretending it had a damn thing to do with why we're actually there.
Of course, even if you were dealing with the actual reality, your argument falls apart any time you attempt to use UN sanctions or their violation since by your own argument we'd have to invade Israel long before Iraq.
So, seriously, try and wake up and deal with reality. Quit repeating totally unrelated idiotic nonsense as if it were in any way relevant.
Oh? Can I sue Slashdot if someone posts a libelous comment? All of the content of Wikipedia is user-created.
I don't know, let's see:
Nasarius is a known puppy kicker, a goatse aficionado, regularly tears the tags off of mattresses, and has been known to rebroadcast Major League Baseball games with only the implied verbal consent of MLB.
Again, don't blame Canada for that one. We're responding to US government demands that we provide that information,
Don't respond to it or you *are* to blame. What kind of a idiotic argument is that?!?
and the US has extended their laws so that information collected in Canada by American companies can be fed back to the US government -- against our privacy laws. This is happening all around us, and while I agree it sucks, we're not the ones driving this.
So don't break your own fucking laws or you are to blame. Again, what kind of an idiotic argument is that?!? You're not driving it, but you're riding shotgun reading the map.
The fact that the US has gone headlong into fascism does not in any way absolve you from responsibility for your actions.
But as a mathematician - he denies that the there was any knowledge of "mathematics" because the principles were never described "mathematically" - just used in an "intuitive way".
"Without the maths", he said, "You can't argue that they understood the maths" and, he continued, "if they never expressed their finding in mathematical terms (i.e. in formulas with proofs) - then it isn't maths anyway - its just architecture"
One easy possible explanation for finding pi in the lengths of the sides of the pyramid would be if they used a wheel to measure out the sides. Make a mark along a radius and specify that the sides should be 100 "rotations" long. Given that pi is the ratio of the circumference (length of one rotation) to the diameter (2 X radius) you've magically placed pi into the length of the side whether or not you even had a clue about anything mathematical.
Interestingly enough Granada (city in southern spain ruled by the Arabs for years) has the best remaining examples of Arabic architecture in existance. The most beautiful example of which is the Alhambra.
And for the musically inclined it also inspired one of the greatest (IMHO) guitar pieces in existence. I'm sure you can find an mp3 somewhere.
Sublime logic there. Something that I don't believe exists is definitely a created object:)
Poorly phrased perhaps, but valid nonetheless. I don't believe in any sort of God, therefore not in sin either since they're intimately related. Were there to be a God and sin, then he would have had to have created it since presumably nothing existed before he decided to create it. Given that I don't buy into any of that, I think it is consistent to say that there is no such thing as sin, but if there were it would have had to have been created.
I find it entirely possible that given a high enough level of thinking, omniscience or omnipotence would not be regarded as automatically resulting in predestiny.
Well, at that point, I think we might have to just agree to disagree. Were that the case, then there wouldn't be omniscience or omnipotence. Granted, were that not the case, the same thing would apply. That's a contradiction meaning the initial assumption (that there is such a being) is incorrect.
Be fair, misusing a word on/. doesn't deserve any more that 5-10 lashes with a wet noodle. That or an insightful mod, your choice:)
I'll take the lashes. Poor modding helps bring the whole place down;-)
That presupposes that god always chooses to exercise his power to control every situation.
Not unless you presuppose that he has to involve himself in every detail of the world to keep it spinning.
To be fair, there are actually branches of Christianity that have taught that or something similar, however most mainstream teaching and certainly the bible teach that we have the power of choice, and that there are many things that happen that are not the will or doing of God.
True, it was taught or often just allowed to be realised by the believers. It doesn't lend itself as well to creating sheep obedient to the people running the religion so it was done away with. I never said that we still didn't have choice in that situation. Just that that choice was predetermined. Nothing could possibly ever happen that wasn't the direct will and choice of god once you have presupposed such a creature.
It's a bit like blaming chair manufacturers for creating chair throwing. They create the chairs, it's Ballmer that throws them.
Very well played on the example;-) Chair manufacturers only create (or build rather) chairs. They didn't create Ballmer, they didn't create the universe he exists in and they didn't decide on exactly what rules such things would operate by.
Likewise, nobody "created" sin, it is not an object requiring creation.
But it is. I, personally, don't even believe such a thing exists. I believe in right and wrong based on my morals but when I do wrong it isn't a sin. It's a bad thing that I need to apologize for (without complicating it too much). However from a religious perspective, before God created the universe, there was nothing here. No sin, no evil, no possibility of picking up a rock and bashing another person's head in to play with the goo inside. No rocks, no heads, no goo. However, it's entirely possible to create a world in which there are no rocks, or that the worst they can do when bashed up against one's skull is to tickle. God did not create that world. He created this one. Regardless of the fact that I can freely choose to bash or not to bash (insert random csh joke here) were I to decide to do so to some random person, that would have been known to god at or before the time he put it all in motion. Did he want that not to happen, he could have easily tweaked a variable before setting it all in motion. Denying that is a contradiction of either omniscience or omnipotence.
As I understand it, apologetics is the attempt to make a reasoned argument for Christianity.
Bah, 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me for misusing the term. Make it 100 since I did it more than once in the same post and should have known better.
You claimed: [Christianity teaches] "He [God] created people with the express intention of making them exactly as they are [sinners]." Christianity does not teach this. The fact that you think it follows inevitably from other Christian teaching does not make it a Christian teaching.
Christianity teaches that god is all knowing and all powerful and created the universe and everything in it. It teaches that god is perfect. Hence the fact that we are the way we are is entirely due to his specific choices in that creation. That is an inevitable result of the fundamental basis of the religion. They do teach god's perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, so that is part and parcel of their teachings. The fact that they spend a lot of time trying to teach other things which directly contradict the fundamental basis of their faith just shows how flawed it is, it doesn't change the fact that their teachings demand the truth of my statement.
Hitler, arguably a more expert opinion on the subject of rousing populations, seems to disagree pretty strongly with your assessment of Christianity and its unique utility in stirring up militancy.
I didn't claim it was unique, just exceptionally well designed for that purpose. I think history bears that out pretty well, although it's length of existence could well be a major determining factor. The whole pursuing you beyond the grave thing is particularly effective in that respect, although likewise not unique.
It seems rather arbitrary to single out religion from the pack of nationalism, ethnopolitics, political ideology, or any other various sets of agglomerated ideas that have been used historically to justify militarism.
In almost all cases though, religion has been used alongside the rest of those. It's not exclusive in that respect. Even the cases where it was an ostensibly atheistic state (USSR, Cambodia etc.) that was simply replacing worship of god with worship of the state so no less a religion.
Moreover, it's an unsupportable generalization to argue that religion has rarely been a tool for anything other than war. This kind of statement reveals more about your own personal opinions than it reflects about the historical role of religions--roles that have been extremely diverse and at a number of times mutually exclusive.
I suppose it depends on whether you're just counting individual cases or looking at larger scale historical trends. I think that the evidence of human history bears out my point quite well. Prior to the founding of the United States, when was there a time where religion wasn't intimately entwined in controlling people's lives either as part of or in place of government?
Pointing to a religious aspect in wars throughout history, it does not follow that religion in general, or even a specific religion is responsible for militarism.
I didn't say that it was *responsible* for militarism, just that it is a tool quite commonly used to get the common believers behind a policy whose best possible result from their perspective is to get out of it alive and uninjured and go back to what they were doing before their leaders started a war.
One need go little further than to contrast the Crusaders and the Quakers to see the absurdity of such a position.
The Catholic Church was one of the dominant powers over Europe at the time of the Crusades and for well over a millenium. The Quakers, while many individuals have done things that earn my respect and admiration, and their ideals are for the most part likewise admirable, are pretty much meaningless from a big picture perspective. They are known for standing up for liberty, equality and many other great ideals, but they do not shape policy for our nation or any other. That is the point I was making when I said that it has rarely been used otherwise.
One might as well impugne any philosophical system of thought that attempts to make ontological or teleological claims about reality--from Plato to biology to Marxism to theoretical physics. All have the potential to be used to stir up militarism in one group of people against another.
I'm not sure how theoretical physics fits in unless you're talking about animosity between Standard model and string theorists, although that's only militant in a metaphorical sense. Biology had its day with eugenics and the like although that largely came about through (probably) intentional misunderstanding and was largely refuted through reason. I'd argue that Marxism was never a problem (not that it isn't deeply flawed, mind you), rather a religious belief in it led to some pretty extreme horrors.
With other *philosophies*, I don't really see them as causing problems either. Again it's a religious belief in such philosophies when you're unable to accept the fact that you might be wrong. When you toss an entriely unsupportable belief in an invisible man in the sky who demands that everyone believ
Yes tit for tat has been proven to be sucessful historically, first proven in the school playground.
Tit for Tat is the most successful strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Granted, that is in a very simplified situation compared to the world at large. Even in the schoolyard, though, it's more true than not. If you get bullied and you pop him in the nose *every time* and do not initiate violence yourself, then he'll tend to pick on easier targets. It worked well for me and I got quite a bit of practice since I moved so much as a kid that at the start of most school years I was the new kid.
I don't associate drugs with violent crime -- but I do associate the illegality of the drugs forcing artificially high prices with violent crime.
I think we're in perfect agreement there.
Violent crime can be reduced. While I'm sure it's a combination of factors, prisons and money seem to help -- the 1980s and 1990s showed that if you lock away violent offenders for a longer period of time, violent crimes drop.
That's certainly true. Heck, lock away enough people and all crime disappears. What I'm trying to encourage you to do is promote repealing bad laws as a first priority instead of further increasing funding and power to police forces. History has shown that getting that money or power back is extremely difficult regardless of the level of crime. What we see instead is further lobbying by the police and the (increasingly *private*) prison industry to increase the number of acts considered criminal and the penalties for crimes victimless or otherwise.
Were your police to need only concern themselves with actual crimes, then they are already hugely overfunded for that role. While adding more funding might be able to reduce violent crime a bit more in your area, I think that we are way past the point of diminishing returns and the decrease in liberty required for those few percentage points of decrease in crime are a net loss. Eliminate a few bad laws and not only will your funding needs go down, violent crime will go down and liberty will go up.
We seem to agree on the general idea that bad laws add to crime, and unless I'm not clear on what you're saying I think the only point of disagreement is whether better results could be attained by addressing the problems with the laws first or whether it's better to keep pouring more money into enforcement of all the laws good, bad, or indifferent.
Whether fascists were militantly Christian because they believed they were following Christianity or because it was a good mechanism with which to rouse the populace is still in dispute.
Any dispute there might be on that seems pretty meaningless to me apart from mere academic curiosity. The particular beliefs of a few people who used a particular religion as a tool of oppression at one particular point in time don't really shed much light on anything that I can see. Religion always has and always will be used in this manner. It is uniquely designed (and Christianity moreso that any others I'm aware of) and suited for this purpose.
It's pretty irrelevant as to whether Hitler was or wasn't a Christian when it's the religion itself that has always been such a powerful tool for evil and rarely, if ever a tool for anything else.
Add to that that the other leg, religion, is kicked away, too, because noone needs religion anymore because they aren't hopelessly locked in in a lower class, then it's quite obvious why they are opposed to the idea of communism (they probably should read the new testament some time).
Except replacing blind faith in "God" with blind faith in "The State" does nothing to remove religion from the equation. All it does is further centralize power in the state by removing church leaders from their positions of power which can be used to take power from the state and invest it in the church(es). The people get fucked all the same any way whether it's theocracy, a government mandated godless state or Church/State conspiring against the people as in fascism and feudalism. It's just a question as to which entity does what part of the fucking.
This is a load of FUD and the logic falls apart pretty quickly. If Catholocism was the genesis of his desire for holocaust, why then would Catholic clergy be one of the groups selected for persecution in the concentration camps--along with Jews, homosexuals, and Roma?
Well, in part because Hitler was following a plan laid out by Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism. Kristalnacht was on Martin Luther's birthday.
Heck, here is Luther's 7 point plan:
First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly and I myself was unaware of it will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.
Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.
Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. (remainder omitted)
Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17 [:10 ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: "what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord." Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people's obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16 {:18], "You are Peter," etc, inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach.
Fifth, I advise that safeconduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let they stay at home. (...remainder omitted).
Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such money should now be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God's blessing in a good and worthy cause.
Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread
"Actually, traditional orthodox Christian teaching would be that God created people flawless, but with the power of choice. They were given instruction and were fully capable of obedience up until the time they chose not to. Their nature was changed through sin."
But who created sin? Who created evil? Who created the universe, people, and everything in it in such a way as to make it occur in exactly that way? That is the point I'm making.
Whether or not you think that Christianity requires credulity is not my point. Christianity is not reasonable from a human perspective. The bible specifically states that to follow God requires the suspension of your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (KJV) There are more verses like this, but you can look them up yourself if you really want to.
Sure, just more apologetics. Ignore the facts and just buy into what I tell you no matter how nonsensical.
The parent post stated that a particular teaching was the basis of the Judeo-Christian religion. I was simply pointing out that the teaching was substatially different than stated, not trying to put forward a rational argument for Christianity.
Except, "the teaching" is nothing but rhetoric designed to hide the underlying truth which is what I was bringing to the forefront.
None of what you said changes the fact that an omnipotent omniscient god not only knew what choices would be made, but set all the variables in such a way as to cause those exact choices to be made. The fact is that it is a rigged game. Nothing different could have happened once god put things into motion in exactly the way that he did. Shifting the blame to people, which is all those teachings you speak of attempt to do, just says that holding the entity responsible for the situation responsible is wrong. So regardless of the rhetoric, the underlying "facts" in the Judeo-Christian myths about god remain what I said they were. They are completely unescapable once you posit an omniscient, omnipotent creator. Those 2 characteristics completely determine all else regardless of whatever else one trys to throw on top of it to absolve god for responsibility for his actions.
That's why reasoning with a committed Christian or showing them evidence contrary to the bible won't convince them.
Sure, which is why the poster I originally responded to has done nothing but talk about how he really knows the truth and how I'm entirely wrong and yet is unable to come up with a single coherrent refutation of anything I said.
You tried, but I think you missed the point that I wasn't talking about the apologetics, rather the basic underlying assumptions and the basic facts that follow inevitably just from the assumptions of omniscience and omnipotence.
Yep, I should have known better. You just want to argue. I have better things to do than to argue with imbeciles. You have already wasted too much of my time. Get lost.
So I state arguments that you could have chosen to refute with facts. You responded with "no it isn't no it isn't no it isn't" and were entirely unable to offer one single rational defense of your statements. I pointed it out to you and it means that I'm an imbecile? Wow, you really do live in a delusional dream world.
That's fine, but quit pretending that you have all these magical answers. You don't. You had a perfect opportunity to present them and all you could do was rant about how you're magically right and lob ad hominems.
Abortion: I oppose it on the basis that I believe the fetus is a human being with a right to life that should only come into question should the mother's life be threatened.
So you believe that a baby should be forced into this world against the will of the person who will then be forced to raise it even though, in your opinion, she would rather have murdered it than given birth to it. To you this is better than the baby never having been born? As a related note, what are your thoughts about sex education in schools?
As a Christian I have to say that I believe gay marriage is a contradiction in terms; gays cannot be married because marriage has a very specific definition to me and I will never personally recognize a homosexual union as being the same as what I have with my wife.
Of course, marriage isn't a Christian institution so your thoughts on what it is "as a Christian" are meaningless. It's not your institution. It is older than your religion by far. You are certainly welcome to think what you like about it, but you should know that it has always been an economic institution, not a religious one. It's nice that you see the anti-American nature of the anti position. It's sad that you don't realize that you're doing nothing to get away from it by advocating civil unions. If it confers those economic benefits, then it's marriage. Nobody cares what your church thinks the definition is since it has nothing to do with your church or your religion. "Separate but equal" which is what you're proposing is only used for discriminating against groups and making second class citizens.
Nobody is trying to make your church perform gay wedding ceremonies, and as long as that's true you have no business getting in their way. Especially when your only motivation is religious as the fundamental difference that set America apart at its founding was the hard coded idea that religious belief has no place whatsoever in the government of a free country. It was for exactly this sort of reason.
It's the other way around. I didn't always believe in God. But I do now because I see evidence of his existence.
I'd say you saw it because you wanted to see it. If it were in any way clear cut evidence, then surely you'd present it. You'd be the first person in history to be able to do so.
The bible contains wisdom that is unparalled in both ancient and modern times.
Laughable. Let's hear it then.
No it's not. Your summation of the Bible is incorrect. If you use words like "exact" you should be exact.
Is there anything incorrect? Other than particular details, is there anything important missing? If so what are they. The fact is that that is the essential details of your faith laid bare. You're upset that it looks as silly as it does when viewed that way. Were that not the case then surely you would have actually pointed out *something* inaccurate with my summation.
Mu. Your summation was a strawman.
Twaddle. Let's hear some actual facts and/or reasoning to back up that statement.
If you would like for me to correct your misunderstanding, I can attempt to do so. If you are genuinely interested in my perspective, I can share it. If you just want to argue, then I have better things to do.
Like I said, I'm perfectly happy to hear rational arguments. You haven't provided anything at all to back up your assertions.
I view the '06 election as a repudiation of the GOP Congress and Bush by the small government / libertarian portion of the GOP base.
Wow, it only took them (at the least) 26 years to get a clue that the Republican party is totally opposed to those ideals.
I'm a small government, (more or less) small 'l' libertarian. I'm 37 years old, and I never once even considered voting for a Republican for any federal office. Not at one time in my life since I reached voting age has the Republican party worked for anything of the sort. They have always been for even bigger more oppressive government than the Democrats for my entire adult life.
Sad to see that you think so many people are so out of touch with reality that it takes them that long to even look around them rather than buying into ancient outdated mewlings of politicians dedicated to fucking them. Not that I disagree with you, but people that slow and clueless scare the shit out of me.
I think one can reasonably debate whether the religious loons have co-opted the Republican party or whether they're simply unbearably annoying and loud enough to get a lot of media coverage.
It can be debated, but it's pretty clear that the Republican party was co-opted by the religious loons some time ago. The election of Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of the Goldwater Republicans. The Republicans were completely unelectable without that contingent and so invited them in to the destruction of their old platform (where they really even bought into it in the first place. There is very little difference between Reagan's administration and Bush's. We have a president publicly pushing religious agendas while engaging in extremist police state tactics at home and a foreign policy driven by largely overblown threats. Heck, it's the same exact people doctoring the intelligence. Heck, even the torture and death camps aren't new. Bush has yet to get anywhere near Reagan's level on that respect yet.
Economically we have the same exact failed policy of cutting taxes while borrowing massive amounts of money at interest and using them to "address" the said massively overblown threats. We have the same exact result: massive increase in the size of the government and its power over the people. So much so that it's been pushing 30 years since you could even argue that the Republicans like small government. They hate small government even more than the Democrats do.
So anybody who actually does believe in small government and fiscal responsibility who considers themselves a Republican is just pissing up the rope that's being used to strangle them. Neither corporate power nor the religious extremists can get their goals without massively overpowered government, so that is not what the Republican party will do.
Heck, just look at the immigration debate. It's been the only real divide in the Republican party for some time. Corporate power is on the side of letting them all in to drive down wages. The isolationist/protectionist/what have you Republicans want to keep them all out. What do we get? More government spending on a worthless wall to appease those who are stupid enough to believe it's effective. Want to put a bet on which side will ultimately "win" that debate?
This article does a good job of laying out the deep divides in the Republican party although it's scope is broader.
I find generally that "follow the money" and "actions speak louder than words" to be much better ways of getting to the heart of an issue than listening to empty rhetoric spouted by politicians.
It's not so much the policy platforms that are shaped by either extreme, it's the completely unwarranted media coverage that the extremes on both side receive. That presents a distorted picture, and fuels each side's opposition to label their entire opposition as a lump with the extremes they loathe.
Except from my perspective, they *are* both entirely driven by extremes. Both parties are big powerful oppressive government parties. Neither party supports me, the individual. The Libertarian Party is the only party that does more than just make speeches about it in order to sucker in the more credulous who blindly believe what politicians say, but even they are driven largely by "religious" type beliefs.
Sort of the opposite of Pascal's Wager, I assume the freedom to criticize authority has a higher priority than "strength from God regardless of existence". Thus, your benefit is reaped only through doubt.
Well put. I've always considered Pascal's wager to be the most abject expression of cowardice.
Honestly I don't remember anyone saying this when I was a child (1970's), I believe it's a newer movement--but then I could have been sheltered from it--I still run into a lot of people who are blind to the fact that Americas' Christians have these beliefs.
They've been around longer than that although they are new in the grand scheme of Christian sects. I remember as a kid (likewise in the 70s) reading some of Heinlein's books and how they "predicted" the rise of theocracy in America. I was all "cool books, but he was pretty much a kook on that". How wrong I was and how perceptive he was.
Slashdot Mirror
I would mention that I voted Republican, but they are no better on this issue.
They're actually worse on every issue if you look at what they do rather than just listen to the lies they spout.
Seriously, if you're stupid enough to have voted for a Republican any time in the last 30 years, then you are so far out of touch with reality as to make your opinions meaningless.
Well, unless your only goal is to see the country looted in favor of the oil and weapons industries and turned into a fascist police state. That's the only way you could even be seen as sane if you were stupid, cowardly and treasonous enough to vote for those scum.
If you expected anything but that, then you're a fool, plain, simple, and indisputable since there is *nothing* apart from idiotic lies that could have led you to that moronic belief.
Seriously, get a clue.
While I think the management of the war in Iraq has been pretty poor...I think we pretty much had full UN authority to go into Iraq...due to resolutions like this [un.org] .
Our 'knock' on the their door was the Serious Consequence mentioned in this and other resolutions.
Not to mention, that Saddam never fully complied with the terms of surrender from Gulf War I...so, technically, we were still at war with him.
I think this has been totally mismanaged, but, not unjustified...if he'd have complied fully, he's still be breathing and torturing people in Iraq to this day.
You might have a point if that was in any way related to how this was presented.
The traitors of the Bush administration didn't bother to try and use those as arguments to justify an invasion as they already knew it wouldn't work.
That's why they dishonestly and with malice aforethought and afore planned intentionally misused the 911 attacks as an excuse to invade Iraq exactly how they stated that they planned on doing back in 2000.
So, trying to defend the worst pack of traitors this country has ever seen based on what might or might not have justified an invasion in your mind is pointless and just demonstrates your complete lack of even the most basic understanding of the issues at hand and their origins.
So if you want to just make up fantasy world scenarios in which an invasion actually was justified, then that's fine. Don't make yourself look stupid by pretending it had a damn thing to do with why we're actually there.
Of course, even if you were dealing with the actual reality, your argument falls apart any time you attempt to use UN sanctions or their violation since by your own argument we'd have to invade Israel long before Iraq.
So, seriously, try and wake up and deal with reality. Quit repeating totally unrelated idiotic nonsense as if it were in any way relevant.
Oh? Can I sue Slashdot if someone posts a libelous comment? All of the content of Wikipedia is user-created.
I don't know, let's see:
Nasarius is a known puppy kicker, a goatse aficionado, regularly tears the tags off of mattresses, and has been known to rebroadcast Major League Baseball games with only the implied verbal consent of MLB.
Again, don't blame Canada for that one. We're responding to US government demands that we provide that information,
Don't respond to it or you *are* to blame. What kind of a idiotic argument is that?!?
and the US has extended their laws so that information collected in Canada by American companies can be fed back to the US government -- against our privacy laws. This is happening all around us, and while I agree it sucks, we're not the ones driving this.
So don't break your own fucking laws or you are to blame. Again, what kind of an idiotic argument is that?!?
You're not driving it, but you're riding shotgun reading the map.
The fact that the US has gone headlong into fascism does not in any way absolve you from responsibility for your actions.
But as a mathematician - he denies that the there was any knowledge of "mathematics" because the principles were never described "mathematically" - just used in an "intuitive way".
"Without the maths", he said, "You can't argue that they understood the maths" and, he continued, "if they never expressed their finding in mathematical terms (i.e. in formulas with proofs) - then it isn't maths anyway - its just architecture"
One easy possible explanation for finding pi in the lengths of the sides of the pyramid would be if they used a wheel to measure out the sides.
Make a mark along a radius and specify that the sides should be 100 "rotations" long. Given that pi is the ratio of the circumference (length of one rotation) to the diameter (2 X radius) you've magically placed pi into the length of the side whether or not you even had a clue about anything mathematical.
Interestingly enough Granada (city in southern spain ruled by the Arabs for years) has the best remaining examples of Arabic architecture in existance. The most beautiful example of which is the Alhambra.
And for the musically inclined it also inspired one of the greatest (IMHO) guitar pieces in existence.
I'm sure you can find an mp3 somewhere.
Cor, I'm getting nasty in my old age.
You're that old and still a virgin? No wonder you're cranky
Your logic and reason are no match for my powers of nonsense!
Arrrggghhhh!!! I should have guessed you were a discordian
Sublime logic there. Something that I don't believe exists is definitely a created object
Poorly phrased perhaps, but valid nonetheless.
I don't believe in any sort of God, therefore not in sin either since they're intimately related.
Were there to be a God and sin, then he would have had to have created it since presumably nothing existed before he decided to create it.
Given that I don't buy into any of that, I think it is consistent to say that there is no such thing as sin, but if there were it would have had to have been created.
I find it entirely possible that given a high enough level of thinking, omniscience or omnipotence would not be regarded as automatically resulting in predestiny.
Well, at that point, I think we might have to just agree to disagree.
Were that the case, then there wouldn't be omniscience or omnipotence. Granted, were that not the case, the same thing would apply.
That's a contradiction meaning the initial assumption (that there is such a being) is incorrect.
Damnable logic rears its ugly head again
Be fair, misusing a word on /. doesn't deserve any more that 5-10 lashes with a wet noodle. That or an insightful mod, your choice :)
;-)
;-)
I'll take the lashes. Poor modding helps bring the whole place down
That presupposes that god always chooses to exercise his power to control every situation.
Not unless you presuppose that he has to involve himself in every detail of the world to keep it spinning.
To be fair, there are actually branches of Christianity that have taught that or something similar, however most mainstream teaching and certainly the bible teach that we have the power of choice, and that there are many things that happen that are not the will or doing of God.
True, it was taught or often just allowed to be realised by the believers. It doesn't lend itself as well to creating sheep obedient to the people running the religion so it was done away with.
I never said that we still didn't have choice in that situation. Just that that choice was predetermined.
Nothing could possibly ever happen that wasn't the direct will and choice of god once you have presupposed such a creature.
It's a bit like blaming chair manufacturers for creating chair throwing. They create the chairs, it's Ballmer that throws them.
Very well played on the example
Chair manufacturers only create (or build rather) chairs. They didn't create Ballmer, they didn't create the universe he exists in and they didn't decide on exactly what rules such things would operate by.
Likewise, nobody "created" sin, it is not an object requiring creation.
But it is. I, personally, don't even believe such a thing exists.
I believe in right and wrong based on my morals but when I do wrong it isn't a sin. It's a bad thing that I need to apologize for (without complicating it too much). However from a religious perspective, before God created the universe, there was nothing here. No sin, no evil, no possibility of picking up a rock and bashing another person's head in to play with the goo inside. No rocks, no heads, no goo. However, it's entirely possible to create a world in which there are no rocks, or that the worst they can do when bashed up against one's skull is to tickle. God did not create that world. He created this one.
Regardless of the fact that I can freely choose to bash or not to bash (insert random csh joke here) were I to decide to do so to some random person, that would have been known to god at or before the time he put it all in motion. Did he want that not to happen, he could have easily tweaked a variable before setting it all in motion.
Denying that is a contradiction of either omniscience or omnipotence.
As I understand it, apologetics is the attempt to make a reasoned argument for Christianity.
Bah, 50 lashes with a wet noodle for me for misusing the term. Make it 100 since I did it more than once in the same post and should have known better.
You claimed: [Christianity teaches] "He [God] created people with the express intention of making them exactly as they are [sinners]." Christianity does not teach this. The fact that you think it follows inevitably from other Christian teaching does not make it a Christian teaching.
Christianity teaches that god is all knowing and all powerful and created the universe and everything in it. It teaches that god is perfect. Hence the fact that we are the way we are is entirely due to his specific choices in that creation.
That is an inevitable result of the fundamental basis of the religion. They do teach god's perfection, omniscience and omnipotence, so that is part and parcel of their teachings. The fact that they spend a lot of time trying to teach other things which directly contradict the fundamental basis of their faith just shows how flawed it is, it doesn't change the fact that their teachings demand the truth of my statement.
Hitler, arguably a more expert opinion on the subject of rousing populations, seems to disagree pretty strongly with your assessment of Christianity and its unique utility in stirring up militancy.
I didn't claim it was unique, just exceptionally well designed for that purpose. I think history bears that out pretty well, although it's length of existence could well be a major determining factor. The whole pursuing you beyond the grave thing is particularly effective in that respect, although likewise not unique.
It seems rather arbitrary to single out religion from the pack of nationalism, ethnopolitics, political ideology, or any other various sets of agglomerated ideas that have been used historically to justify militarism.
In almost all cases though, religion has been used alongside the rest of those. It's not exclusive in that respect. Even the cases where it was an ostensibly atheistic state (USSR, Cambodia etc.) that was simply replacing worship of god with worship of the state so no less a religion.
Moreover, it's an unsupportable generalization to argue that religion has rarely been a tool for anything other than war. This kind of statement reveals more about your own personal opinions than it reflects about the historical role of religions--roles that have been extremely diverse and at a number of times mutually exclusive.
I suppose it depends on whether you're just counting individual cases or looking at larger scale historical trends.
I think that the evidence of human history bears out my point quite well. Prior to the founding of the United States, when was there a time where religion wasn't intimately entwined in controlling people's lives either as part of or in place of government?
Pointing to a religious aspect in wars throughout history, it does not follow that religion in general, or even a specific religion is responsible for militarism.
I didn't say that it was *responsible* for militarism, just that it is a tool quite commonly used to get the common believers behind a policy whose best possible result from their perspective is to get out of it alive and uninjured and go back to what they were doing before their leaders started a war.
One need go little further than to contrast the Crusaders and the Quakers to see the absurdity of such a position.
The Catholic Church was one of the dominant powers over Europe at the time of the Crusades and for well over a millenium.
The Quakers, while many individuals have done things that earn my respect and admiration, and their ideals are for the most part likewise admirable, are pretty much meaningless from a big picture perspective. They are known for standing up for liberty, equality and many other great ideals, but they do not shape policy for our nation or any other.
That is the point I was making when I said that it has rarely been used otherwise.
One might as well impugne any philosophical system of thought that attempts to make ontological or teleological claims about reality--from Plato to biology to Marxism to theoretical physics. All have the potential to be used to stir up militarism in one group of people against another.
I'm not sure how theoretical physics fits in unless you're talking about animosity between Standard model and string theorists, although that's only militant in a metaphorical sense. Biology had its day with eugenics and the like although that largely came about through (probably) intentional misunderstanding and was largely refuted through reason. I'd argue that Marxism was never a problem (not that it isn't deeply flawed, mind you), rather a religious belief in it led to some pretty extreme horrors.
With other *philosophies*, I don't really see them as causing problems either. Again it's a religious belief in such philosophies when you're unable to accept the fact that you might be wrong. When you toss an entriely unsupportable belief in an invisible man in the sky who demands that everyone believ
Yes tit for tat has been proven to be sucessful historically, first proven in the school playground.
Tit for Tat is the most successful strategy for the iterated prisoner's dilemma.
Granted, that is in a very simplified situation compared to the world at large.
Even in the schoolyard, though, it's more true than not. If you get bullied and you pop him in the nose *every time* and do not initiate violence yourself, then he'll tend to pick on easier targets. It worked well for me and I got quite a bit of practice since I moved so much as a kid that at the start of most school years I was the new kid.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I don't associate drugs with violent crime -- but I do associate the illegality of the drugs forcing artificially high prices with violent crime.
I think we're in perfect agreement there.
Violent crime can be reduced. While I'm sure it's a combination of factors, prisons and money seem to help -- the 1980s and 1990s showed that if you lock away violent offenders for a longer period of time, violent crimes drop.
That's certainly true. Heck, lock away enough people and all crime disappears.
What I'm trying to encourage you to do is promote repealing bad laws as a first priority instead of further increasing funding and power to police forces. History has shown that getting that money or power back is extremely difficult regardless of the level of crime. What we see instead is further lobbying by the police and the (increasingly *private*) prison industry to increase the number of acts considered criminal and the penalties for crimes victimless or otherwise.
Were your police to need only concern themselves with actual crimes, then they are already hugely overfunded for that role. While adding more funding might be able to reduce violent crime a bit more in your area, I think that we are way past the point of diminishing returns and the decrease in liberty required for those few percentage points of decrease in crime are a net loss.
Eliminate a few bad laws and not only will your funding needs go down, violent crime will go down and liberty will go up.
We seem to agree on the general idea that bad laws add to crime, and unless I'm not clear on what you're saying I think the only point of disagreement is whether better results could be attained by addressing the problems with the laws first or whether it's better to keep pouring more money into enforcement of all the laws good, bad, or indifferent.
Whether fascists were militantly Christian because they believed they were following Christianity or because it was a good mechanism with which to rouse the populace is still in dispute.
Any dispute there might be on that seems pretty meaningless to me apart from mere academic curiosity.
The particular beliefs of a few people who used a particular religion as a tool of oppression at one particular point in time don't really shed much light on anything that I can see.
Religion always has and always will be used in this manner. It is uniquely designed (and Christianity moreso that any others I'm aware of) and suited for this purpose.
It's pretty irrelevant as to whether Hitler was or wasn't a Christian when it's the religion itself that has always been such a powerful tool for evil and rarely, if ever a tool for anything else.
Add to that that the other leg, religion, is kicked away, too, because noone needs religion anymore because they aren't hopelessly locked in in a lower class, then it's quite obvious why they are opposed to the idea of communism (they probably should read the new testament some time).
Except replacing blind faith in "God" with blind faith in "The State" does nothing to remove religion from the equation. All it does is further centralize power in the state by removing church leaders from their positions of power which can be used to take power from the state and invest it in the church(es). The people get fucked all the same any way whether it's theocracy, a government mandated godless state or Church/State conspiring against the people as in fascism and feudalism. It's just a question as to which entity does what part of the fucking.
Well, in part because Hitler was following a plan laid out by Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism. Kristalnacht was on Martin Luther's birthday.
Heck, here is Luther's 7 point plan:
"Actually, traditional orthodox Christian teaching would be that God created people flawless, but with the power of choice. They were given instruction and were fully capable of obedience up until the time they chose not to. Their nature was changed through sin."
But who created sin? Who created evil? Who created the universe, people, and everything in it in such a way as to make it occur in exactly that way? That is the point I'm making.
Whether or not you think that Christianity requires credulity is not my point. Christianity is not reasonable from a human perspective. The bible specifically states that to follow God requires the suspension of your own understanding. Proverbs 3:5 "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." (KJV) There are more verses like this, but you can look them up yourself if you really want to.
Sure, just more apologetics. Ignore the facts and just buy into what I tell you no matter how nonsensical.
The parent post stated that a particular teaching was the basis of the Judeo-Christian religion. I was simply pointing out that the teaching was substatially different than stated, not trying to put forward a rational argument for Christianity.
Except, "the teaching" is nothing but rhetoric designed to hide the underlying truth which is what I was bringing to the forefront.
None of what you said changes the fact that an omnipotent omniscient god not only knew what choices would be made, but set all the variables in such a way as to cause those exact choices to be made. The fact is that it is a rigged game. Nothing different could have happened once god put things into motion in exactly the way that he did. Shifting the blame to people, which is all those teachings you speak of attempt to do, just says that holding the entity responsible for the situation responsible is wrong.
So regardless of the rhetoric, the underlying "facts" in the Judeo-Christian myths about god remain what I said they were. They are completely unescapable once you posit an omniscient, omnipotent creator. Those 2 characteristics completely determine all else regardless of whatever else one trys to throw on top of it to absolve god for responsibility for his actions.
That's why reasoning with a committed Christian or showing them evidence contrary to the bible won't convince them.
Sure, which is why the poster I originally responded to has done nothing but talk about how he really knows the truth and how I'm entirely wrong and yet is unable to come up with a single coherrent refutation of anything I said.
You tried, but I think you missed the point that I wasn't talking about the apologetics, rather the basic underlying assumptions and the basic facts that follow inevitably just from the assumptions of omniscience and omnipotence.
Yep, I should have known better. You just want to argue. I have better things to do than to argue with imbeciles. You have already wasted too much of my time. Get lost.
So I state arguments that you could have chosen to refute with facts. You responded with "no it isn't no it isn't no it isn't" and were entirely unable to offer one single rational defense of your statements.
I pointed it out to you and it means that I'm an imbecile? Wow, you really do live in a delusional dream world.
That's fine, but quit pretending that you have all these magical answers. You don't. You had a perfect opportunity to present them and all you could do was rant about how you're magically right and lob ad hominems.
You're a shining example, that's for sure.
Abortion: I oppose it on the basis that I believe the fetus is a human being with a right to life that should only come into question should the mother's life be threatened.
So you believe that a baby should be forced into this world against the will of the person who will then be forced to raise it even though, in your opinion, she would rather have murdered it than given birth to it. To you this is better than the baby never having been born?
As a related note, what are your thoughts about sex education in schools?
As a Christian I have to say that I believe gay marriage is a contradiction in terms; gays cannot be married because marriage has a very specific definition to me and I will never personally recognize a homosexual union as being the same as what I have with my wife.
Of course, marriage isn't a Christian institution so your thoughts on what it is "as a Christian" are meaningless. It's not your institution. It is older than your religion by far. You are certainly welcome to think what you like about it, but you should know that it has always been an economic institution, not a religious one.
It's nice that you see the anti-American nature of the anti position. It's sad that you don't realize that you're doing nothing to get away from it by advocating civil unions. If it confers those economic benefits, then it's marriage. Nobody cares what your church thinks the definition is since it has nothing to do with your church or your religion. "Separate but equal" which is what you're proposing is only used for discriminating against groups and making second class citizens.
Nobody is trying to make your church perform gay wedding ceremonies, and as long as that's true you have no business getting in their way. Especially when your only motivation is religious as the fundamental difference that set America apart at its founding was the hard coded idea that religious belief has no place whatsoever in the government of a free country. It was for exactly this sort of reason.
It's the other way around. I didn't always believe in God. But I do now because I see evidence of his existence.
I'd say you saw it because you wanted to see it. If it were in any way clear cut evidence, then surely you'd present it. You'd be the first person in history to be able to do so.
The bible contains wisdom that is unparalled in both ancient and modern times.
Laughable. Let's hear it then.
No it's not. Your summation of the Bible is incorrect. If you use words like "exact" you should be exact.
Is there anything incorrect? Other than particular details, is there anything important missing? If so what are they.
The fact is that that is the essential details of your faith laid bare. You're upset that it looks as silly as it does when viewed that way. Were that not the case then surely you would have actually pointed out *something* inaccurate with my summation.
Mu. Your summation was a strawman.
Twaddle. Let's hear some actual facts and/or reasoning to back up that statement.
If you would like for me to correct your misunderstanding, I can attempt to do so. If you are genuinely interested in my perspective, I can share it. If you just want to argue, then I have better things to do.
Like I said, I'm perfectly happy to hear rational arguments. You haven't provided anything at all to back up your assertions.
I view the '06 election as a repudiation of the GOP Congress and Bush by the small government / libertarian portion of the GOP base.
Wow, it only took them (at the least) 26 years to get a clue that the Republican party is totally opposed to those ideals.
I'm a small government, (more or less) small 'l' libertarian. I'm 37 years old, and I never once even considered voting for a Republican for any federal office. Not at one time in my life since I reached voting age has the Republican party worked for anything of the sort. They have always been for even bigger more oppressive government than the Democrats for my entire adult life.
Sad to see that you think so many people are so out of touch with reality that it takes them that long to even look around them rather than buying into ancient outdated mewlings of politicians dedicated to fucking them.
Not that I disagree with you, but people that slow and clueless scare the shit out of me.
I think one can reasonably debate whether the religious loons have co-opted the Republican party or whether they're simply unbearably annoying and loud enough to get a lot of media coverage.
It can be debated, but it's pretty clear that the Republican party was co-opted by the religious loons some time ago.
The election of Reagan was the final nail in the coffin of the Goldwater Republicans. The Republicans were completely unelectable without that contingent and so invited them in to the destruction of their old platform (where they really even bought into it in the first place.
There is very little difference between Reagan's administration and Bush's. We have a president publicly pushing religious agendas while engaging in extremist police state tactics at home and a foreign policy driven by largely overblown threats. Heck, it's the same exact people doctoring the intelligence.
Heck, even the torture and death camps aren't new. Bush has yet to get anywhere near Reagan's level on that respect yet.
Economically we have the same exact failed policy of cutting taxes while borrowing massive amounts of money at interest and using them to "address" the said massively overblown threats. We have the same exact result: massive increase in the size of the government and its power over the people. So much so that it's been pushing 30 years since you could even argue that the Republicans like small government. They hate small government even more than the Democrats do.
So anybody who actually does believe in small government and fiscal responsibility who considers themselves a Republican is just pissing up the rope that's being used to strangle them. Neither corporate power nor the religious extremists can get their goals without massively overpowered government, so that is not what the Republican party will do.
Heck, just look at the immigration debate. It's been the only real divide in the Republican party for some time. Corporate power is on the side of letting them all in to drive down wages. The isolationist/protectionist/what have you Republicans want to keep them all out. What do we get? More government spending on a worthless wall to appease those who are stupid enough to believe it's effective. Want to put a bet on which side will ultimately "win" that debate?
This article does a good job of laying out the deep divides in the Republican party although it's scope is broader.
I find generally that "follow the money" and "actions speak louder than words" to be much better ways of getting to the heart of an issue than listening to empty rhetoric spouted by politicians.
It's not so much the policy platforms that are shaped by either extreme, it's the completely unwarranted media coverage that the extremes on both side receive. That presents a distorted picture, and fuels each side's opposition to label their entire opposition as a lump with the extremes they loathe.
Except from my perspective, they *are* both entirely driven by extremes. Both parties are big powerful oppressive government parties. Neither party supports me, the individual. The Libertarian Party is the only party that does more than just make speeches about it in order to sucker in the more credulous who blindly believe what politicians say, but even they are driven largely by "religious" type beliefs.
Sort of the opposite of Pascal's Wager, I assume the freedom to criticize authority has a higher priority than "strength from God regardless of existence". Thus, your benefit is reaped only through doubt.
Well put. I've always considered Pascal's wager to be the most abject expression of cowardice.
Honestly I don't remember anyone saying this when I was a child (1970's), I believe it's a newer movement--but then I could have been sheltered from it--I still run into a lot of people who are blind to the fact that Americas' Christians have these beliefs.
They've been around longer than that although they are new in the grand scheme of Christian sects.
I remember as a kid (likewise in the 70s) reading some of Heinlein's books and how they "predicted" the rise of theocracy in America. I was all "cool books, but he was pretty much a kook on that".
How wrong I was and how perceptive he was.