Why Republicans Embrace Simpletons and How it Hurts America

[RandomGuy]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen, and philosophers and divines."

-- Ralph Waldo Emerson (Self-Reliance)


Since I report on American education, including the intellectual lassitude of American voters, foreign observers routinely ask me: Why Do Republicans Gleefully Embrace Idiots as Presidential Candidates?

The question naturally begs a larger question: How can a country, with the world’s highest national GDP, and absurdly complex systems regulating everything from credit default swaps to nuclear missile safety, possibly allow onto its national stage men and women of such transparently inferior intellect?

The easy answer is that there has always been a long, pathetic history of anti-intellectual paranoia in American politics, as Richard Hofstadter documented in his book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (1963). It is like kudzu. You just can’t kill it. No matter how advanced the U.S. becomes in technology, biomedicine, and weaponry, it not only attracts, but promotes, under the rubric of equal opportunity, a confederacy of dunces as Presidential candidates.

To be fair, Democrats have had their share of dolts, including the tax-cheating, race-baiting, college dropout Reverend Al Sharpton (who gained fame not only because of his courageous civil rights protests, but because he claims to be “Keepin’ It Real”; read: not formally educated), as well as Democrat-turned-Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond (whose 1948 campaign slogan was “Segregation Forever”). Nevertheless, in 2011, the God-fearing Ossified Party has rolled out the greatest assortment of Know-Nothings in its history, most of whom share a singular misconception: because I can do one small thing well (e.g., run a pizza chain), I can handle the world’s most demanding job.

At first blush, one thinks this embrace of incompetence has something to do with the uniquely American idea that anyone from any background can become President. It’s an old saw told to almost every young person in the country. I believed it. I also believed that I would be an astronaut or a professional basketball player.

However, reason suggests, that when a clear-headed adult, with no experience in national politics, no reputable training in public policy -- as opposed to a bastion of Christian zealotry like the former Oral Roberts School of Law, which Michelle Bachman attended -- and little understanding of countries outside U.S. borders, says that he or she is running for President, his or her reasonable adult compadres should rightly say, “You are suffering from delusions of grandeur.” After all, you need advanced degrees to properly practice medicine, law, and nuclear physics. Why would we expect the Leader of the Free World to have anything less than the precise qualifications for such an elevated job opening?

However, only in America is no training or knowledge required to perform a job that is not only more complicated and demanding than the above three fields, but one which regulates the above three occupations and all sorts of other complex and nuanced occupations around the globe (including undercover agents in foreign lands).

But that’s only the beginning. What's far more troubling is that you can attract a huge amount of support in this country precisely because you lack qualifications to be president. Such reasoning is, in effect, the raison d’etre of all so-called “outside-the-Beltway” campaigns of recent vintage. However, to fully grasp why inexperience, incompetence and outright stupidity has such an emotional hold on Republicans in particular, you have to understand a core principle of conservative orthodoxy: intelligence equates with moral relativism. Which is why, after twice-electing a genuine, but fatally corrupt, thinking person in Richard Nixon, the Republican Party moved away from its historically pragmatic moderation in search of morally doctrinaire ideologues. Naturally, this paved the way for conservative extremists, who, while short on smarts -- or perhaps because they were short on smarts -- stuck to “conservative principles” like maggots to rotting meat. As my late diehard conservative Republican mother told me when I asked how she could rabidly support such an obvious dullard as George W. Bush, "Because I don't trust the smart ones."

Ronald Reagan became the first of many morally unambiguous dimwits to warm the cockles of conservative hearts. [oooh snap. He went after St. Ronnie. His inbox will be full by morning.--RG] Yes, with this post-Nixon strategy, the dwindling GOP intellectual fringe (historically held up by William Buckley and barely maintained to this day by the likes of David Brooks and Peggy Noonan) has had to stomach an occasional faux pas (e.g., Reagan's simpleton predecessor, Gerald Ford, claiming in a 1976 presidential debate that “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe”), or gasp-inducing ignorance of foreign policy basics (e.g., Sarah Palin not knowing that there is a North and South Korea, or her hysterical notion that Sputnik bankrupted the Soviet Union). But, at least they knew their standard-bearer was not going wishy-washy on them (i.e., thinking hard for a living).

This gambit worked so well with Reagan, it naturally attracted other knuckleheads. First came George Bush Sr.’s running mate, William Danforth Quayle, who promptly showed his latent stupidity by public misspelling potato as “potatoe” … in front of a sixth-grader

Thereafter, Quayle was the butt of many excellent late night jokes, but he lacked the earnest believability of a Reagan to ever accede to the Oval Office (though he did have a fairly hot wife). It took two terms of an intelligent commander-in-chief, and another moral equivocator, former law professor Bill Clinton, for the Republicans to search again for an unequivocal moral crusader with not a whole lot going on upstairs.

Enter George W. Bush, who, like Reagan, also enjoyed two terms in office, despite beliefs in brazen poppycock such as Intelligent Design and in the whopper of all disastrous absurdities, that Saddam Hussein was not only marshalling weapons of mass destruction to directly attack the U.S. (no, he was bluffing to deter his real enemy, neighboring Iran), but that he was also behind 9/11 (never let a good crisis go to waste, eh Mr. Cheney?). Only a true rube could believe such specious nonsense. And G.W. Bush – who exemplified the adage, “Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity” -- fit the bill. The Republican Party loved him for it, bending over backwards to sanitize and “Hannitize” his many blunders, while selling his disinformation to a gullible American public still in shock from the attacks of 9/11.

At last count, the Iraq Detour has cost this nation trillions of dollars (with more trillions to come, as this country keeps its commitment to care for wounded and mentally shell-shocked Iraq War veterans and their loved ones). It also cost the lives of 125,000 Iraqi civilians, and many times more than that who’ve been wounded or displaced by the Iraqi misadventure. All because of a lie and Americans’ willingness to either believe that lie or not forthrightly contest it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the empirical cost of stupidity.

After the costly policy blunders of Bush, Jr. -- for which this country is still paying dearly in lower credit ratings and draconian cuts in funding for parks, libraries, law enforcement, and more -- in came yet another Democratic law professor to clean up yet another Republican mess. Except this Democrat, Barack Obama, did not carry the moral and ethical baggage of his Democratic predecessor.

However, for reasons both racial and political, though primarily intellectual (President Obama is too cosmopolitan, too wordly, too nuanced, too calm, too Europe-friendly), Republicans have aggressively sought to cut Obama’s tenure short. Unfortunately, this time around they lack a bona fide, morally unequivocal, conservative with enough general election appeal to take Obama on. Each hopeful successor to the Republican Dumbass Throne (the coveted RDT) has proven so cartoonishly dopey as to offend even the intelligence of diehard Iowa primary voters, easily the most unbending conservatives in the U.S.

Things are now so bad on the dumbass front that, in a poll announced yesterday, Iowans are no longer interested in the current crop of Republican cretins. This includes Texas Governor Rick “Oops” Perry, who, in a colossal boneheaded moment in a live nationally televised debate, could not remember the third federal agency he would cut as president.

In an empirical validation of the anti-intellectual streak in GOP Politics, Perry then went on national talk shows the following morning to defend his stupidity as a reason to vote for him. On CNN’s “American Morning,” Perry said, "We've got a debater-in-chief right now, and you gotta ask yourself: 'How's that working out for America?'" In other words, being a good debater, and knowing the issues, is bad for America. This list also includes Michelle “Pray the Gay Away” Bachman, who believes that “Founding Fathers” like John Quincy Adams “worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States” (except J. Q. Adams died in 1848, long before “slavery was no more”). Even though the self-righteous Bachman is a native of Waterloo, Iowa, voters in her home state just cannot see trusting her with the codes to the U.S. nuclear arsenal (trusting a Creationist like Bachman on any public policy would be like trusting a phrenologist with curing your cancer).

And, yes, this also includes the endlessly entertaining Herman “I’m Not Supposed to Know Anything About Foreign Policy” Cain, whose inability to construct a coherent sentence on Libya and stated desire to prevent an already nuclear-armed China from “going nuclear” are now part of national dumbass folklore.

And lets not forget the deeply annoying Rick "Sanctum" Santorum, who said publicly that former P.O.W. John McCain “didn’t understand advanced interrogation techniques.” A Republican dumbass hallmark: arrogance wed to ignorance.

As a result of such transparently dumb stooges, Iowa Republicans, and conservatives in general, are actually settling on a bona fide shyster in the Richard Nixon mold: the pudgy, pompous, nastiness known as Newt Gingrich. As I made clear in my previous column, Darth Gingrich Vs. the Romney Ken Doll, the Republican nomination is now a race between Gingrich and Romney, which, once all the baggage of the corrupt former Speaker is laid out for all to see, could tilt to the nomination back to the Massachusetts Mormon, where’s it’s been for most of this Republican election cycle.

Now, you might ask, why aren’t Republicans in love with Romney? After all, he’s been a successful businessman in the Republican mold, essentially downsizing companies to their bare essentials and then reselling them for profit. He has that vague, detached, tall Ken Doll vibe that Republicans idealized in Reagan. In addition, as a devout Mormon, he’s squeaky clean in the morals department. Dude doesn’t drink, smoke, do drugs, or drink hot caffeinated beverages. He’s more straight edge than the Crotty, and that’s saying something.

Unfortunately, Romney, a Harvard graduate (and not a faux one like G.W. Bush), is just not seen as dumb enough. Though he and his Mormon faithful believe in preposterous canards (e.g., that Jesus Came to America), Romney consistently demonstrates a frustrating lack of imbecility, particularly in the the artful compromises he’s engineered over his political career, including his momentous achievement of passing mandatory health insurance in his adopted home state of Massachusetts. This subtlety of purpose, this nuance, is anathema to politically and morally unambiguous conservatives, who see the world in great big Murdoch-style tabloid dualism.

Which makes their sudden embrace of Mr. Gingrich so hilarious. Because, even more than Romney, it is Gingrich who has demonstrated enormous flexibility in his core conservative principles. He voted for NAFTA and the WTO; loan guarantees for China; most favored nation status for China; $1.2 billion in aid to the United Nations; and the creation of the Department of Education. Moreover, he reached across the aisle to make deals with Democrat Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, while achieving a compromise on global warming with Nanci Pelosi (which he has since pathetically renounced in an attempt to appeal to the Hannity-Bennett blockhead wing of the GOP). Recently, he attacked Paul Ryan’s budget plan as “right-wing social engineering” (before backing off that claim as well).

What Gingrich proves is not his electability, but, rather, the disastrous absurdity of the Conservative fealty test. Like other fealty tests in American history (from Truman’s Executive Order 9835, a.k.a. the “Loyalty Order,” to Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, right up to Herman Cain’s Muslim Loyalty Test), it is bound to end badly for the candidate, the party, and the country, which is governed best when the commander-in-chief is given enormous flexibility to do the practical, diplomatic, and, thus, smart, thing, not the ideologically pure one.

http://news.yahoo.com/why-republicans-embrace-simpletons-hurts-america-192501947.html
By James Marshall Crotty | Forbes – Wed, Nov 30, 2011..
------------------------------------------------------------

Well put essay on the alarmingly consistant anti-intellectual, anti-science streak of the right wing in this country.

[Trainwreck2100]

cause the majority of america is stupid. I didn't even have to read all that either

[TeyshaBlue]

Cool story bro.
I especially enjoyed the vapid attribution of the voting populance as exclusively Republucan. Thats some slick shit.

[SnakeBoy]

Well put essay on the alarmingly consistant anti-intellectual, anti-science streak of the right wing in this country.

It's really not.

[boutons_deux]

You're welcome to to propose really ignorant, dumb Dem candidates who got elected overwhelmlingly by ignorant, dumb voters.

btw, the English upper class and conservatives also don't like the people to be "too smart by half". Anti-intellectualism must be mainly a conservative trait.

[coyotes_geek]

speaking of simpletons..........

[boutons_deux]

blatantly untrue, gfy

[vy65]

Terrible fucking article. Rather than examining and explaining how conservative ideology ties in with a strain of populism which is anti-intellectual (an argument I 100% believe), this idiot just yells "this guy is an idiot, that guy is an idiot, and this guy is an idiot."

Also, lol leaving out Huntsman and Paul. Are they idiots too?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its very simple. For all the lip service that scientists put out about how the tow notions are compatible. Religion and science do not jive. Biology has been sicking it to Christianity for 150 years and the devout don't like having to reconcile bullshit with the experimentally confirmable.

As such congregations for the past 150 years have been preaching distrust of 'intellectuals' and its no coincidence that the political party of the religious types wants people that don't scrutinize fundamental dogma.

[Winehole23]

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/1169/1/stern.pdf

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/1169/1/stern.pdf

Thats interesting and moreso because his terming Neo-thomism or whetever it was is precisely the type of aristotelian categorization that was criticized.

[vy65]

Its very simple. For all the lip service that scientists put out about how the tow notions are compatible. Religion and science do not jive. Biology has been sicking it to Christianity for 150 years and the devout don't like having to reconcile bullshit with the experimentally confirmable.

As such congregations for the past 150 years have been preaching distrust of 'intellectuals' and its no coincidence that the political party of the religious types wants people that don't scrutinize fundamental dogma.

Form/Content

"...It is possible today to redeem this core of Christianity only in the gesture of abandoning the shell of its institutional organization (and even more so, of its specific religious experience). The gap here is irreducible: either one drops the religious form, or one maintains the form but lose the essence. This is the ultimate heroic gesture that awaits Christianity: in order to save its treasure, it has to sacrifice itself -- like Christ, who had to die so that Christianity could emerge."

Slavoj Zizek, The Puppet and the Dwarf

[Winehole23]

@FL: Please expand. Your point isn't intuitively clear to me.

[Winehole23]

Sure didn't take you long to get a handle on "neo-Thomism or whatever it is" -- three or four minutes, tops.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure didn't take you long to get a handle on "neo-Thomism or whatever it is" -- three or four minutes, tops.

Its because I am aware of the work of Aquinas and Neo Thomism is jsut a play on words on this. It was like 10 pages I read 4 and knew what he was talking about.

Aristotle had neat little compartments for knowledge like the types of love or knowledge in and of itself. Everything had to fit into one of these categories. The criticism that Russell had was centered around that. I am aware of what he says too.

By calling it Neo-Thomism he is basically grouping the two phenomenons togehter. Categorization and out need for it can be traced back to Aristotle. I just found the feedback ironic so I said something.

Education is a wonderful thing.

[Winehole23]

Its because I am aware of the work of Aquinas and Neo Thomism is jsut a play on words on this.Therefore, Maritain referring to himself as a paleo-Thomist.

Aristotle had neat little compartments for knowledge like the types of love or knowledge in and of itself. Everything had to fit into one of these categories. The criticism that Russell had was centered around that.What was that criticism?

Education is a wonderful thing.Too bad everyone who disagrees (or isn't on the same page as you) lacks it. Must be very lonely.

[Winehole23]

Biology has been sicking it to Christianity for 150 years and the devout don't like having to reconcile bullshit with the experimentally confirmable.False dilemma. The objects of faith and the objects of science are not the same objects.

[Winehole23]

For some, they are indeed, but to put that attitude down to Christianity as such is a hasty generalization.

[Winehole23]

Dispensationalism and its variants are not the whole thing. Far from it.

[Winehole23]

So no, Fuzzy, it's not so simple.

[Bender]

fuzzy logic?

[Winehole23]

more rhetoric than logic, sadly

[Winehole23]

Stipulation: I wouldn't run all dispensationalists into the same ditch either. There's a goodly variety there, too.

(Admittedly, Fuzzy's sweeping generalization sticks a little better to dispensationalism than it does, say, to Roman Catholicism.)

[mingus]

First came George Bush Sr.’s running mate, William Danforth Quayle, who promptly showed his latent stupidity by public misspelling potato as “potatoe” … in front of a sixth-grader

this guy deserves to have his head bashed for putting this in there.

[Winehole23]

why?

[boutons_deux]

pretty boy Quayle just another stupid Repug 1%er ridiculously unqualified for the WH.

http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Dan_Quayle

[Winehole23]

Back on topic:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=138620&highlight=Russell+Kirk

[Winehole23]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/opinion/05brooks.html?ref=opinion

[Winehole23]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122610558004810243.html

[Winehole23]

http://www.frumforum.com/admit-it-the-gop-needs-a-smart-nominee

[Winehole23]

So, the trend bugs some conservatives too.

[Winehole23]

Recurring to the tangent, some good conversation can be found here (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1201565&postcount=425).

[Wild Cobra]

Are we to understand this author doesn't think democrats do the same thing?

Granted, I didn't need to read the whole article. If the simple minded people are not appealed to for votes, you cannot win. Just that simple. I will venture to guess that more than 90% of Americans do not inform themselves enough to make a proper vote.

[boutons_deux]

"author doesn't think democrats do the same thing"

examples?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

With William Buckley went any attempt at consistent intelligent justification of the 'conservative' viewpoint. His death was a tragedy for American politics.

[ElNono]

Are we to understand this author doesn't think democrats do the same thing?


To be fair, Democrats have had their share of dolts, including the tax-cheating, race-baiting, college dropout Reverend Al Sharpton, as well as Democrat-turned-Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Reading is fundamental.

[vy65]

So lemme get this straight. Christianity (whatever that means) inherently opposes/contradicts/cannot reconcile with science (whatever that means) because christian dogman (again, whatever that means) cannot explain and therefore must dismiss phenomena like combustion?

[Winehole23]

:popcorn

[vy65]

^ you inspired me ...

[boutons_deux]

"Christianity (whatever that means) inherently opposes/contradicts/cannot reconcile with science"

"Christians" who believe in Bible literalism as superceding/negates anything science comes up with ...

[vy65]

Christianity isn't identical with nor does it necessarily line up with biblical literalism.

[boutons_deux]

Bible literalists are weird, fringe cult, a perverse offshoot of Christianity, that makes up interpretations, including the idea that the Bible is literally how the universe is

[Phenomanul]

Bible literalists are weird, fringe cult, a perverse offshoot of Christianity, that makes up interpretations, including the idea that the Bible is literally how the universe is

You realize that your irrational hatred and contempt for Christians is a direct attack on Christ Himself (since the Church is His body)? [Much like how Saul of Tarsus was reprimanded by Jesus for persecuting Him - even though all Saul did was persecute the early Church.]

Anyways, your hatred for all things Christ, is a constant reminder that GOD's Word is true... because 1) otherwise, you wouldn't constantly apply the "Christian" label so broadly in negative light [meaning that if you had a legitimate gripe against someone because they were greedy, powerhungry, lustful, deceitful, hypocritical or malevolent you should call them out for that - instead of harping on the fact that they chose to label themselves as / or that you believe they are "Christians" when most likely that isn't even the case]. 2) you've singled out Christianity as the "curse of the nation / world / humanity / history," and by proxy as the root of our country's problems (with that sentiment, the spirit of the anti-christ is manifest in almost every other post of yours - something which the Bible foretold would be a prevalent belief by those persecuting the Church [paraphrasing]).

So boutons, because the Bible specifically speaks about people like you - and since you gain nothing whatsoever by hating Christians it stands to reason that your hatred is simply fueled by the spirit of this world, specifically that of your father, Satan [-paraphrasing Jesus] and because you embody that hatred, your existence [and the existence of other belligerent Christ-haters like yourself] only adds credence to the veracity of Scripture and is another in a long line of profetical accuracies contained by the 'book' you so disdain. Of course, these words will probably "cut at your heart," because it's not a truth that you willfully want to acknowledge...

Having said that, I'm expecting nothing short of the obligatory three-letter acronym you've come to be known for... (AND not surprisingly enough -mocking rebuttals from those who would rarely throw you a bone - that's right, other Christ-haters will come to your defense... all for the sake of mocking Jesus Christ...) :wakeup

/ end rant

[ChumpDumper]

Jesus is very sensitive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Christianity isn't identical with nor does it necessarily line up with biblical literalism.

So make the term Christianity as imbiguous as possible and use that as a defense? Like that shit hasn't been beaten to death with the 'God works in mysterious ways' and the mysticism tripe. Lets define christianity.

The root of christianity is christ so we can certainly distill it to just that. The combustion comment was to point out that copper furnaces burn at a temperature higher than what it takes to oxidize human flesh but you can discount the stories of the Old Testament if you like. Shadrach did not in fact get thrown into a lit furnace and survive.

Lets focus on 'christ.' He supposedly was born by Mary by some other means than every other recorded birth in history because meiosis leaves female eggs with only half of the chromosomal material. Mary got fucked by her soon to be husband or someone else out of wedlock and gave birth to Jesus. She just happened to live in a time where bastards or mazmer as they were termed in aramaic were social outcasts.

He replicated fish but by the laws of thermodynamics we know that energy can neither be created or destroyed and we know by relativity that energy and matter are analogous. There goes that line of bullshit.

He then died after receiving multiple open wounds and the complications that ultimately would have killed him after hanging suspended from a cross like that. We know about bacterial composition and human physiology which tend to contravene the account of his resurrection.

Then there is Paul and John's account of how the above tales mean that despite us all being horrible deficient sinners he did it all for us as long as we buy the above bullshit we get to participate in the grace of God. John's gospel is chock full of whoppers that people take with a grain of salt already. Paul was after the fact and was just the first missionary. Being ingrained in Roman society and with our extensive knowledge of their ruling classes its no coincidence all the agreements he grants in his letter to them.

You are a lawyer. What is the Texas legal standard for witnesses that repeatedly have been proven to be inaccurate?

If you want to debase Christianity to just some nice stories without authority then fine. The individuals who see themselves as invested with authority with the stories about Jesus who actually show up as powers in a pluralist society work to prevent such debasement.

You can waffle on the semantics of the word christian to your hearts content. These principles of christianity are not true and as such trying to force things to conform to it makes seeking the truth harder.

Let me get one thing straight too. I am not an atheist. Not even remotely.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The Republican party doesn't just glorify stupid candidates but they love to demonize smart people. Anytime there's a Democrat with an Ivy League education running for something, the GOP goes on a smear campaign calling him an "elitist" as if having an Ivy League education is a bad thing and is something only terrible people have.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Christianity isn't identical with nor does it necessarily line up with biblical literalism.
Get that weak shit out of here.

You don't get to pick and chose which parts of the bible to deem as part of Christianity. If Christians get to persecute gays and use the bible as a reason to do so, then the bible gives me a right to have slaves.

[vy65]

Get that weak shit out of hear.

You don't get to pick and chose which parts of the bible to deem as part of Christianity. If Christians get to persecute gays and use the bible as a reason to do so, then the bible gives me a right to have slaves.

That I agree with. But can a Christian believe in shit like redemption, love, life-after-death, grace, etc... etc... without believing, literally, in people getting eaten by whales and talking snakes?

[ElNono]

You realize that your irrational hatred and contempt for Christians is a direct attack on Christ Himself (since the Church is His body)?

There's the distinct possibility that he doesn't give a shit.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

yeah they can, just don't try to force the bible into Government with laws

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

There's the distinct possibility that he doesn't give a shit.
:lol

[vy65]

So make the term Christianity as imbiguous as possible and use that as a defense? Like that shit hasn't been beaten to death with the 'God works in mysterious ways' and the mysticism tripe. Lets define christianity.

I don't know what I was making ambiguous. Nor how that was being used as a defense. I was questioning your taking a very broad and hasty cut at what Christianity/Christian Dogma means - and - making that generalization necessarily inconsistent with scientific rationality.


The root of christianity is christ so we can certainly distill it to just that. The combustion comment was to point out that copper furnaces burn at a temperature higher than what it takes to oxidize human flesh but you can discount the stories of the Old Testament if you like. Shadrach did not in fact get thrown into a lit furnace and survive.

Lets focus on 'christ.' He supposedly was born by Mary by some other means than every other recorded birth in history because meiosis leaves female eggs with only half of the chromosomal material. Mary got fucked by her soon to be husband or someone else out of wedlock and gave birth to Jesus. She just happened to live in a time where bastards or mazmer as they were termed in aramaic were social outcasts.

He replicated fish but by the laws of thermodynamics we know that energy can neither be created or destroyed and we know by relativity that energy and matter are analogous. There goes that line of bullshit.

He then died after receiving multiple open wounds and the complications that ultimately would have killed him after hanging suspended from a cross like that. We know about bacterial composition and human physiology which tend to contravene the account of his resurrection.

Then there is Paul and John's account of how the above tales mean that despite us all being horrible deficient sinners he did it all for us as long as we buy the above bullshit we get to participate in the grace of God. John's gospel is chock full of whoppers that people take with a grain of salt already. Paul was after the fact and was just the first missionary. Being ingrained in Roman society and with our extensive knowledge of their ruling classes its no coincidence all the agreements he grants in his letter to them.

This is kind of the point. Why is the root of Christianity Christ? Why isn't it the notion of God's love, life-after-death, the church, fellowship with others, etc... etc... And if that's what you mean by Christ, why does it necessarily follow that a good Christian must believe, literally, that the events you've described actually took place exactly as the bible describes them?

And is that literal belief in the events, as-described, actually taking place the same as Christian Dogma? I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.


You are a lawyer. What is the Texas legal standard for witnesses that repeatedly have been proven to be inaccurate?

I literally have no clue what you're talking about. There's no standard for evaluating a witness's credibility. That determination is left up to the jury to asses for themselves, without the aid of a "legal" test. And I don't think you're talking about the Keller case- so - what are you talking about?


If you want to debase Christianity to just some nice stories without authority then fine. The individuals who see themselves as invested with authority with the stories about Jesus who actually show up as powers in a pluralist society work to prevent such debasement.

You can waffle on the semantics of the word christian to your hearts content. These principles of christianity are not true and as such trying to force things to conform to it makes seeking the truth harder.

Let me get one thing straight too. I am not an atheist. Not even remotely.

I'm not waffling on anything. You threw out terms (Christianity, Dogma, Science) - and I asked for clarification on what you meant.

If your claim is that being a christian means believing everything in the bible literally took place as written, my question is: why?

If your claim is something else, you've done a poor job explaining that.

As it stands, you still haven't given us a workable definition of Christianity (other than it having something to do with Christ), Christian Dogma, or science (for purposes of this conversation). I really don't see the point in discussing this further until you answer these questions.

[vy65]

yeah they can, just don't try to force the bible into Government with laws

Me and DOK, standing shoulder-to-shoulder . . .

[vy65]

There's the distinct possibility that he doesn't give a shit.

lol tyler durden

[Blake]

You realize that your irrational hatred and contempt for Christians is a direct attack on Christ Himself (since the Church is His body)?

What's Christ going to do about it?

[vy65]

Is it possible that Christian faith can be something other than the stories kids are told in Sunday school and which TEA party members, for the most part, believe actually occurred?

[Blake]

Is it possible that Christian faith can be something other than the stories kids are told in Sunday school and which TEA party members, for the most part, believe actually occurred?

Too bad sunday school teachers leave out the story of the kids getting mauled because they made fun of a bald guy.

One of my favorites, tbh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know what I was making ambiguous. Nor how that was being used as a defense. I was questioning your taking a very broad and hasty cut at what Christianity/Christian Dogma means - and - making that generalization necessarily inconsistent with scientific rationality.



This is kind of the point. Why is the root of Christianity Christ? Why isn't it the notion of God's love, life-after-death, the church, fellowship with others, etc... etc... And if that's what you mean by Christ, why does it necessarily follow that a good Christian must believe, literally, that the events you've described actually took place exactly as the bible describes them?

And is that literal belief in the events, as-described, actually taking place the same as Christian Dogma? I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.



I literally have no clue what you're talking about. There's no standard for evaluating a witness's credibility. That determination is left up to the jury to asses for themselves, without the aid of a "legal" test. And I don't think you're talking about the Keller case- so - what are you talking about?



I'm not waffling on anything. You threw out terms (Christianity, Dogma, Science) - and I asked for clarification on what you meant.

If your claim is that being a christian means believing everything in the bible literally took place as written, my question is: why?

If your claim is something else, you've done a poor job explaining that.

As it stands, you still haven't given us a workable definition of Christianity (other than it having something to do with Christ), Christian Dogma, or science (for purposes of this conversation). I really don't see the point in discussing this further until you answer these questions.

If you want to call yourself christian b picking and choosing which parts are bullshit, figurative and mean what they actually say then go right ahead.

the central assertions of Paul and John which are central to Christianity, specifically the virgin birth and salvation from resurrection, are specious at best.

[vy65]

Lol ok.

I see a lot of claims there without much, if any proof, but whatever. I shouldn't expect much of a defense from such a broad over generalization.

[Blake]

Lol ok.

I see a lot of claims there without much, if any proof, but whatever. I shouldn't expect much of a defense from such a broad over generalization.

usually the defense doesn't make claims.

....and who is the defendant here?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol ok.

I see a lot of claims there without much, if any proof, but whatever. I shouldn't expect much of a defense from such a broad over generalization.

Christians share the same trend of following Christ. You can move those goal posts on literal or grace or whatever else all you want.

All you are doing here is refusing to allow any definition come into play. then you simply discount everything with a blanket dismissal as if that is any way meaningful.

I understand that you do not take it literally. Personally i find that position much more self-serving and much less self-honest but whatevs. At the end of the day those stories are not true. You go ahead and run your life on a figurative interpretation of bullshit.

[vy65]

I've been very sloppy in articulating my point. For that I apologize.


usually the defense doesn't make claims.

....and who is the defendant here?

True to an extent. What I was questioning was the following:


This is the wrong thread but my point is that Christianity by virtue of its dogma being absolutely at odds with what logic demands from an intellectual approach is going to trend towards anti-intellectualism.

For example, when you begin to understand processes like meiosis, combustion, flight,and respiration many of the main tenants within the Christian faith do not jive. Many simply try to mentally ignore the incongruency but it is there always nonetheless.

The reason why Aquinas position was flawed was because when push came to shove the two are incompatible.

As such people coming to the realization that the dogma is not true leads to a decline in membership and that is undesirable to any organization.

Now I agree that the Catholic Church, Episcopalians and countless individuals are Christian and not part of the religious right but as a whole they all have a long and storied tradition of Luddism.

Its just that mega-churches which comprise the Christian right for the most part have been politically active since the 1980s and have there own storied past when it comes to stunting the search for the truth.

. . . which is filed with rank overgeneralizations. For example, the notion that Christianity (defined as "following Christ" --whatever that means) is "going to trend towards anti-intellectualism" completely ignores a very long tradition of Christian intellectuals - from Aquainas to Kant to Kierkegaard to C.S. Lewis. The notion that "Christianity" is anti-intellectual overgeneralizes to the point of excluding scores of Christian intellectuals.

I simply wanted to know what Christianity meant - which isn't asking for too much given Fuzzy's initial assertion. He's refused to give a clearer definition of what Christianity is - but that doesn't stop him from claiming all Christian's are irrational because they have to believe the teachings of Paul and John. He hasn't provided any proof why that's the case. It's just rank overgeneralization on top of overgeneralization.

When I asked for his definition, he 1) said they follow Christ and 2) tried to make this about my personal beliefs. 1) really is a poor answer and in no way supports his over-generalization of Christians and 2) is irrelevant.

All I want to know is the answer to these simple questions: 1) what is Christian dogma (as opposed to Catholic, Anglican, Coptic, Armenian Orthodox, etc... Dogma) and does it necessarily require a literal interpretation of the bible; 2) if so, where's that requirement come from; and 3) why does that interpretation necessarily make all Christian's irrational and Christianity anti-intellectual?

[Blake]

All I want to know is the answer to these simple questions: 1) what is Christian dogma (as opposed to Catholic, Anglican, Coptic, Armenian Orthodox, etc... Dogma) and does it necessarily require a literal interpretation of the bible; 2) if so, where's that requirement come from; and 3) why does that interpretation necessarily make all Christian's irrational and Christianity anti-intellectual?

1) I think Wikipedia should have decent entries on each religion's dogma.

1a) I think in general, Christianity does require a literal interpretation of the entire Bible. You're either all-in or it's all crap, imo.

2) it comes from common sense. Who are you to pick and choose what parts are real?

3) there have been some smart Christians to be sure, but the rationality of Christianity always comes back to flying spaghetti monsters.

[Phenomanul]

Like I said, these words are piercing...


Jesus is very sensitive.

Throwing Boutons a bone... how nice of you. I guess I should have also called that you would be one of the first among many to do so...


There's the distinct possibility that he doesn't give a shit.

Those in your camp can only hope. Scriptures run counter to your argument that Jesus doesn't care, but go ahead and get all your kicks in while you still can... and then when you face Him on judgement day, be sure to claim ignorance, 'that you simply didn't know any better'.... oh wait... I might have messed that up for you... meh... Frankly, you are all accountable for your own actions. If you choose to reject Jesus' offer of grace, that's entirely on YOU. :wakeup


What's Christ going to do about it?

He's giving humanity ample time to turn away from their sinfulness, to repent and turn to Him... We must all take accountability for our own actions. If you want to take Jesus head on, however, be my guest... :wakeup




yeah they can, just don't try to force the bible into Government with laws.

So why should I be 'forced' to live under a government defined strictly by your perspective, your world-view? Oh that's right, you're advocating the need for a fascist state defined solely by your atheistic view... because in your mind godless secularism, and moral relativism is the only correct view by which the government should operate...

In other words, the voice of millions of American believers whose opinion doesn't jive with your own dogma should be left unrepresented for the greater 'good' of having a government that imposes only your beliefs... Got it. :rolleyes

smh... Some people simply fail to grasp the most basic of concepts concerning the Democratic process... Did you not take U.S. Government in High School?

I don't have to agree with the Ku Klux Klan belief system, but they're entitled to believe whatever they want, and to lobby for whatever they want... Ultimately, popular vote wins out... as long as it doesn't interfere with our Constitutionally protected rights...


:sleep

[redzero]

You realize that your irrational hatred and contempt for Christians is a direct attack on Christ Himself (since the Church is His body)? [Much like how Saul of Tarsus was reprimanded by Jesus for persecuting Him - even though all Saul did was persecute the early Church.]

Anyways, your hatred for all things Christ, is a constant reminder that GOD's Word is true... because 1) otherwise, you wouldn't constantly apply the "Christian" label so broadly in negative light [meaning that if you had a legitimate gripe against someone because they were greedy, powerhungry, lustful, deceitful, hypocritical or malevolent you should call them out for that - instead of harping on the fact that they chose to label themselves as / or that you believe they are "Christians" when most likely that isn't even the case]. 2) you've singled out Christianity as the "curse of the nation / world / humanity / history," and by proxy as the root of our country's problems (with that sentiment, the spirit of the anti-christ is manifest in almost every other post of yours - something which the Bible foretold would be a prevalent belief by those persecuting the Church [paraphrasing]).

So boutons, because the Bible specifically speaks about people like you - and since you gain nothing whatsoever by hating Christians it stands to reason that your hatred is simply fueled by the spirit of this world, specifically that of your father, Satan [-paraphrasing Jesus] and because you embody that hatred, your existence [and the existence of other belligerent Christ-haters like yourself] only adds credence to the veracity of Scripture and is another in a long line of profetical accuracies contained by the 'book' you so disdain. Of course, these words will probably "cut at your heart," because it's not a truth that you willfully want to acknowledge...

Having said that, I'm expecting nothing short of the obligatory three-letter acronym you've come to be known for... (AND not surprisingly enough -mocking rebuttals from those who would rarely throw you a bone - that's right, other Christ-haters will come to your defense... all for the sake of mocking Jesus Christ...) :wakeup

/ end rant

Is this guy serious?

[Phenomanul]

1) I think Wikipedia should have decent entries on each religion's dogma.

1a) I think in general, Christianity does require a literal interpretation of the entire Bible. You're either all-in or it's all crap, imo.

2) it comes from common sense. Who are you to pick and choose what parts are real?

3) there have been some smart Christians to be sure, but the rationality of Christianity always comes back to flying spaghetti monsters.

The fathers of the modern Scientific movement were predominantly and without question, believers of Jesus Christ. That you all constantly try to downplay the significance of that observation, and even claim otherwise is pretty disingenuous, downright reprehensible, and intellectually dishonest.

To me the rationality of naturalistic atheists always comes back to the faith-based belief that "life sprung on its own," by chance, even though that premise is continually negated, and the opposite constantly affirmed (that life can only come from life...) What's certain is that you all will continue to deny that you have deposited your belief system on chance (RG will even give you his version of the probabilities involved...) eh... Potato / Potahtoh

Of course we could do this all day... and neither one of us is going to budge even a smidgeon...

I would say, "whatever, to each his own"... but we both know, that you and others here just utterly hate the fact that anyone out there would follow Christ... which is why you constantly hurl insults in our direction. DO AS YOU PLEASE. :wakeup

[redzero]

Where did God's life come from?

[Phenomanul]

Where did God's life come from?

I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with you... You got it aaaaaaaall figured out.

Peace be with you... in the name of JESUS CHRIST. :tu

[redzero]

You are starting to post like a crazy person. Just a heads up.

[Phenomanul]

You are starting to post like a crazy person. Just a heads up.

Why, because I'm quoting scripture? I've always done so.


"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me [Jesus] before it hated you."
John 15:18

"All men will hate you because of me [Jesus], but he who stands firm to the end will be saved."
Matthew 10:22

"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me."
Matthew 24:9

"Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you."
1 John 3:13

"Hear the word of the LORD, you who tremble at his word: "Your brothers who hate you, and exclude you because of my name, have said, 'Let the LORD be glorified, that we may see your joy!' Yet they will be put to shame."
Isaiah 66:5

[RandomGuy]

I simply wanted to know what Christianity meant - which isn't asking for too much given Fuzzy's initial assertion. He's refused to give a clearer definition of what Christianity is - but that doesn't stop him from claiming all Christian's are irrational because they have to believe the teachings of Paul and John.

Believing something without evidence of it, seems to me to meet the definition of irrationality.


Marked by a lack of accord with reason

If I told you I read that long ago the world was populated by 500-foot tall sentient carrots who gave birth to humanity through sneezing, and I got that from a badly translated 2,000 year old book, written by someone with every motivation to make things up, and with parts of the account heavily edited by long-dead monks, would you find that irrational?

I have no evidence of 500 foot tall carrots, outside of this one account.

[RandomGuy]

The fathers of the modern Scientific movement were predominantly and without question, believers of Jesus Christ. That you all constantly try to downplay the significance of that

Yes they were.

If they weren't, up until about 1900 or so, they faced severe social ostracism and marginalisation.

I would point out that in the modern era, the most recent execution for heresy was 1826, and it was commonplace to execute people for going against church teachings up until about that time.

Kind of hard to buck the system when the price was death. I would swear up and down how much I believed, if the alternative is being burned at the stake.

I don't have to downplay anything. It is what it is.

If you are brought up believing something, and fairly intelligent, you can rationalize all sorts of irrational things.

Especially when you have no evidence to the contrary.

The problem for your trumpeting of this fact is that, as more evidence about the universe is discovered by mankind, the less likely brilliant people are to deeply believe in various religions.

[RandomGuy]

Is this guy serious?

He is indeed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

One of a long, storied line. Props. :toast

[RandomGuy]

.

To me the rationality of naturalistic atheists always comes back to the faith-based belief that "life sprung on its own," by chance, even though that premise is continually negated, and the opposite constantly affirmed (that life can only come from life...) What's certain is that you all will continue to deny that you have deposited your belief system on chance (RG will even give you his version of the probabilities involved...) eh... Potato / Potahtoh

The God of the gaps schtick (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps) again.

Don't you ever get tired of that failed thrust?

[ElNono]

Those in your camp can only hope. Scriptures run counter to your argument that Jesus doesn't care, but go ahead and get all your kicks in while you still can... and then when you face Him on judgement day, be sure to claim ignorance, 'that you simply didn't know any better'.... oh wait... I might have messed that up for you... meh... Frankly, you are all accountable for your own actions. If you choose to reject Jesus' offer of grace, that's entirely on YOU. :wakeup

I was talking about boutons...

lol planning for the afterlife
lol living in fear of judgement day
lol tiptoeing not to anger imaginary friend
lol imaginary friend a sensitive, vindicative asshole
lol 'scriptures' written by men for men
lol Santa Claus written by men for men

[Phenomanul]

Yes they were.

If they weren't, up until about 1900 or so, they faced severe social ostracism and marginalisation.

I would point out that in the modern era, the most recent execution for heresy was 1826, and it was commonplace to execute people for going against church teachings up until about that time.

Kind of hard to buck the system when the price was death. I would swear up and down how much I believed, if the alternative is being burned at the stake.

I don't have to downplay anything. It is what it is.

If you are brought up believing something, and fairly intelligent, you can rationalize all sorts of irrational things.

Especially when you have no evidence to the contrary.

The problem for your trumpeting of this fact is that, as more evidence about the universe is discovered by mankind, the less likely brilliant people are to deeply believe in various religions.

You're conveniently mixing up your historical eras... you can't talk about the age governed by the Catholic Church (not fully representative of the tenets of Christianity despite their claims), and the Renaissance period of 'enlightenment'... the period from whence the Scientific Movement was born...

Again, your rationalized predisposition to believe that their faith wasn't genuine wouldn't explain why men such as Isaac Newton (the father of calculus and physics) wrote entire volumes dedicated to understanding GOD's role in our universe. ["yeah, they were believers... but, but, but... they didn't have a choice..." <-- that's more of the same disingenuousness I alluded to earlier...]

I would gladly discuss this topic further with you (even if our conversations tend to run ad naseum)... but I have much to do today at work... Peace out.

[ElNono]

Oh, and if I'm wrong, I'm not scared of being judged... there's certainly better, more logical and reasonable explanations than "I didn't know better", and frankly, I don't care. I'm living my life like it ends when it ends.

[ElNono]

You are starting to post like a crazy person. Just a heads up.

:lol

[Phenomanul]

I was talking about boutons...

lol planning for the afterlife
lol living in fear of judgement day
lol tiptoeing not to anger imaginary friend
lol imaginary friend a sensitive, vindicative asshole
lol 'scriptures' written by men for men
lol Santa Claus written by men for men

LOL that you would believe "I live in fear"... I've learned never worry about what tomorrow holds. By contrast, and by personal experience, most, if not all of my co-workers are constantly fretting about finances, health, problems with their family, confrontations with others, problems with the law, self-esteem issues, etc... True, being a Christian doesn't prevent me from having to endure some of those same difficulties, the difference is that I've learned to manage them with a Christ-centered perspective... and it makes all the difference in the world...

[clambake]

you are the true saint over that flock.

[ElNono]

LOL that you would believe "I live in fear"... I've learned never worry about what tomorrow holds. By contrast, and by personal experience, most, if not all of my co-workers are constantly fretting about finances, health, problems with their family, confrontations with others, problems with the law, self-esteem issues, etc... True, being a Christian doesn't prevent me from having to endure some of those same difficulties, the difference is that I've learned to manage them with a Christ-centered perspective... and it makes all the difference in the world...

It's what you preach, buddy. When you write stuff like...

get all your kicks in while you still can... and then when you face Him on judgement day, be sure to claim ignorance

...you're preaching fear, not grace. That's the psychotic aspect of all this.

[RandomGuy]

You're conveniently mixing up your historical eras... you can't talk about the age governed by the Catholic Church (not fully representative of the tenets of Christianity despite their claims), and the Renaissance period of 'enlightenment'... the period from whence the Scientific Movement was born...

Again, your rationalized predisposition to believe that their faith wasn't genuine wouldn't explain why men such as Isaac Newton (the father of calculus and physics) wrote entire volumes dedicated to understanding GOD's role in our universe. ["yeah, they were believers... but, but, but... they didn't have a choice..." <-- that's more of the same disingenuousness I alluded to earlier...]

I would gladly discuss this topic further with you (even if our conversations tend to run ad naseum)... but I have much to do today at work... Peace out.

To be clear: I am sure their faith was genuine. As I said before, they had little evidence that the world was not exactly as depicted in the Bible.

Well, your mention of "modern era" was a bit amorphous. Can't blame me for a good faith effort of trying to fill in what you don't specify what you mean.

I was actually trying to be a bit generous. If you want to start going all "look at the Rennaisance Enlightenment" there were no few people put to death, by both Catholics and Protestants, during the reformation, then you are making my case partly for me.

I have work to do as well. We will have to wait for my outline as to how wrong you are for later. :p:

[Phenomanul]

It's what you preach, buddy. When you write stuff like...

get all your kicks in while you still can... and then when you face Him on judgement day, be sure to claim ignorance

...you're preaching fear, not grace. That's the psychotic aspect of all this.

I guess only those in your camp are entitled to sarcasm... :rolleyes

I'm not preaching to anyone here... you all have clearly, decidedly, made your choices regarding Christ's offer of grace... it's rather poignant when you all insult Him directly, and constantly claim "intellectual superiority and reason" as the basis for your choice.. That has been your typical stance in every one of these threads...

Your observational rebuttal of my stance or my choice of words hence, "doesn't fly" in light of your own tendencies... not when your own attitudes clearly indicate you've already made up your mind... but, that didn't stop you from erroneously claiming I lived in fear... :lol


:wakeup

[vy65]

So why should I be 'forced' to live under a government defined strictly by your perspective, your world-view? Oh that's right, you're advocating the need for a fascist state defined solely by your atheistic view... because in your mind godless secularism, and moral relativism is the only correct view by which the government should operate...

In other words, the voice of millions of American believers whose opinion doesn't jive with your own dogma should be left unrepresented for the greater 'good' of having a government that imposes only your beliefs... Got it. :rolleyes

smh... Some people simply fail to grasp the most basic of concepts concerning the Democratic process... Did you not take U.S. Government in High School?

I don't have to agree with the Ku Klux Klan belief system, but they're entitled to believe whatever they want, and to lobby for whatever they want... Ultimately, popular vote wins out... as long as it doesn't interfere with our Constitutionally protected rights...


:sleep

lolwut

[Blake]

He's giving humanity ample time to turn away from their sinfulness, to repent and turn to Him... We must all take accountability for our own actions. If you want to take Jesus head on, however, be my guest... :wakeup


My plan is to attack Jesus now, sleep in on Sundays and then repent of my sins on my death bed.

See you in heaven.

[Blake]

The fathers of the modern Scientific movement were predominantly and without question, believers of Jesus Christ. That you all constantly try to downplay the significance of that observation, and even claim otherwise is pretty disingenuous, downright reprehensible, and intellectually dishonest.


There isn't one scientist that has proven the existence of a God.

But that's besides the point of why Christianity on it's own is irrational. i.m.o.

[baseline bum]

My plan is to attack Jesus now, sleep in on Sundays and then repent of my sins on my death bed.

See you in heaven.

Would be a bad idea IMO. If there is a god it seems the worst thing one could do is worship the wrong one. Picking Jesus at the last minute would be a hell of a roll of the dice when there are so many other equally likely possibilities like Allah, Horus, Zeus, Ganesha, Flying Spaghetti Monster, L.Ron Hubbard, and so on. I think I'm best off by not picking one tbh.

[ElNono]

I guess only those in your camp are entitled to sarcasm... :rolleyes

Well, it's not like irrationality isn't part of your repertoire when it comes to this topic... :rolleyes

But if the whole judgement thing is just some inside joke, you got me... :lol


I'm not preaching to anyone here... you all have clearly, decidedly, made your choices regarding Christ's offer of grace... it's rather poignant when you all insult Him directly, and constantly claim "intellectual superiority and reason" as the basis for your choice.. That has been your typical stance in every one of these threads...

I make fun of christ as much as I make fun of santa claus or the lord of the rings. If I see no difference in them, I don't know why I should treat them any different to please you or lord of the rings fans. The whole butthurt about "intellectual superiority" is opinion. You're entitled to yours, and I'm entitled to mine.


Your observational rebuttal of my stance or my choice of words hence, "doesn't fly" in light of your own tendencies... not when your own attitudes clearly indicate you've already made up your mind... but, that didn't stop you from erroneously claiming I lived in fear... :lol

Says who? You? :lol

You don't get to choose what flies or doesn't fly. Neither do I. We present our positions here, and people read them. What flies or not is up to them.

And yes, I do truly think you go out of your way not to piss off your imaginary friend, because you fear what will happen if you do. As a matter of fact, nothing you posted so far indicates otherwise.

[spursncowboys]

Well, it's not like irrationality isn't part of your repertoire when it comes to this topic... :rolleyes

But if the whole judgement thing is just some inside joke, you got me... :lol



I make fun of christ as much as I make fun of santa claus or the lord of the rings. If I see no difference in them, I don't know why I should treat them any different to please you or lord of the rings fans. The whole butthurt about "intellectual superiority" is opinion. You're entitled to yours, and I'm entitled to mine.



Says who? You? :lol

You don't get to choose what flies or doesn't fly. Neither do I. We present our positions here, and people read them. What flies or not is up to them.

And yes, I do truly think you go out of your way not to piss off your imaginary friend, because you fear what will happen if you do. As a matter of fact, nothing you posted so far indicates otherwise.

I find this completely ridiculous. Regardless of the church, or the viewpoints of christianity that you disagree with, to not appreciate all the good that has come from jesus' teachings. To put the hundreds of millons of people who have been helped by the charities of people who live through the morals taught by jesus, in the same belittling term as lord of the rings. To dismiss the millions of people who live a vow of poverty and spend their entire life helping because it is a "religion" is the most asinine thing I have ever seen from an intelligent person.

[ChumpDumper]

Like I said, these words are piercing...



Throwing Boutons a bone... how nice of you. I guess I should have also called that you would be one of the first among many to do so...Many to do what?

I made that characterization purely from your description of the Jesus. You make him out to be pretty emo. If you don't want people thinking your savior is a pouty bitch, don't say he's a pouty bitch.

[Blake]

I find this completely ridiculous. Regardless of the church, or the viewpoints of christianity that you disagree with, to not appreciate all the good that has come from jesus' teachings. To put the hundreds of millons of people who have been helped by the charities of people who live through the morals taught by jesus, in the same belittling term as lord of the rings. To dismiss the millions of people who live a vow of poverty and spend their entire life helping because it is a "religion" is the most asinine thing I have ever seen from an intelligent person.

It's easy to dismiss because of the flip side to all of that.

[Blake]

Would be a bad idea IMO. If there is a god it seems the worst thing one could do is worship the wrong one. Picking Jesus at the last minute would be a hell of a roll of the dice when there are so many other equally likely possibilities like Allah, Horus, Zeus, Ganesha, Flying Spaghetti Monster, L.Ron Hubbard, and so on. I think I'm best off by not picking one tbh.

I figure the best thing would be to pick as many different ones as I can at the last minute....while skipping the ones that give automatic entry to heaven.

[ElNono]

I find this completely ridiculous. Regardless of the church, or the viewpoints of christianity that you disagree with, to not appreciate all the good that has come from jesus' teachings.

But I never said that. I actually said the opposite. Church works for some people in a psychological way, and I'm glad it works for them.


To put the hundreds of millons of people who have been helped by the charities of people who live through the morals taught by jesus, in the same belittling term as lord of the rings.

Now you're insulting lord of the rings fans...


To dismiss the millions of people who live a vow of poverty and spend their entire life helping because it is a "religion" is the most asinine thing I have ever seen from an intelligent person.

Good deeds are done in the name of a lot of things, christ/god/christianity just being one of them. Christianity has also done some horrendous things under the same banner and on multiple power trips.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

stuff

GMFB. Now i am about convinced you've had a Catholic education. Kant, Kierkegaard and Aquinas at least had the intellectual stones to believe in something literal and not some make-of-it-what-you-will-so-that-you-can-feel-better-about-yourself nonsense.

What made some of them great is precisely because they tried to reconcile the empirical and the rational. They were championed moreso by the Church as they lent the Church credibility. Aquinas was a despot about it however but at least he relented a little bit. Woo fucking hoo he said that you could look outside of scripture for truth as long as it didn't violate scripture. Thanks, Tom.

Kant did not cite such things and is that much more noble because of it. Anthropology has pretty clearly demonstrated that his notions about constancy in the development of complex ideas was not supported by evidence but it was an honest and worthwhile approach.

Kierkegaard was as bad as Aquinas. He essentially said that one cannot possibly get direct evidence of God through science and hid behind the mysticism bullshit. God as the Wizard of Oz is lame as hell. At least he made an attempt to reconcile the issue.

CS Lewis' literary claim to fame is children's stories and a book of grief. Big fucking deal. Running around in circles of dogmatic logic does not represent a discovery of the truth.

Next time you make this argument go with DesCartes. Cartesian coordinate system for the win but I fail to see how his insights into geometry were inspired by scripture. His proofs on God were certainly fallacious. Again though, he did not hide behind subjective interpretations.

The behavior of the first and third are direct specific examples of inserting literal scripture as the rationale in inductive reasoning. thats anti-intellectual to the fucking core. Your own examples of christian intellectuals illustrate my point. thanks.


All I want to know is the answer to these simple questions: 1) what is Christian dogma (as opposed to Catholic, Anglican, Coptic, Armenian Orthodox, etc... Dogma) and does it necessarily require a literal interpretation of the bible;

http://api.ning.com/files/WzRNWJbYX491Pq3ZyNXOXd2pxgVutTyeccZC2gBWVALTIz6q8T aqbyPyrkZ4QBlWfY7KboeyuBesEqXOZzb8x0LOpjtdoHPr/bibleInfo003.jpg

Catholics and Orthodox may go beyond this text with their dictates but they all include it.


2) if so, where's that requirement come from; and

http://api.ning.com/files/WzRNWJbYX491Pq3ZyNXOXd2pxgVutTyeccZC2gBWVALTIz6q8T aqbyPyrkZ4QBlWfY7KboeyuBesEqXOZzb8x0LOpjtdoHPr/bibleInfo003.jpg

Revelations Chapter 3 is whats regularly cited. I am sure there is more. It is after all self serving dogma.


3) why does that interpretation necessarily make all Christian's irrational and Christianity anti-intellectual?

Whoever said that it made the individual irrational in all respects. We are talking about the institutions that define pluralist activity. The Catholic Church, the Baptists et al. They promote literal interpretation. Its great that Luther allowed a measure of independent thought but that does not mitigate what these institutions do.

As for the individual, if you want to accept human physiology on the one hand and believe in immaculate conception and resurrection then yes that makes you irrational or at the very least grossly inconsistent in your rationale.

[spursncowboys]

But I never said that. I actually said the opposite. Church works for some people in a psychological way, and I'm glad it works for them. I'm still not talking about " psychological" in any way.




Now you're insulting lord of the rings fans... Being closed minded about jesus and christianity. But once again you cannot argue the basic morals and principles have created far more positive. Including it in the same as trekkies, although amusing around high brows would be laughable if it weren't done so often. It's been overdone in this forum to death. But if that is what you want to do, :toast




Good deeds are done in the name of a lot of things, christ/god/christianity just being one of them. Christianity has also done some horrendous things under the same banner and on multiple power trips.So I guess one bad deed will destroy billions of good deeds?

[ElNono]

I'm still not talking about " psychological" in any way.

Being closed minded about jesus and christianity. But once again you cannot argue the basic morals and principles have created far more positive. Including it in the same as trekkies, although amusing around high brows would be laughable if it weren't done so often. It's been overdone in this forum to death. But if that is what you want to do, :toast

Not sure what "morals and principles" you're talking about, but "morals and principles" in general are a very personal thing that exist beyond christianity or religion. Kinda asinine to state otherwise.


So I guess one bad deed will destroy billions of good deeds?

No, the point is that you can do good and bad under any name. You know, atheists give gifts too...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you entertaining made up numbers concerning 'good' deeds versus 'bad' deeds?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh and to the subjective Christians I submit Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy chapter 3 verse 16


16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Now I agree that Paul was full of shit but I guess you can always go for a figurative interpretation of "is profitable for doctrine... for instruction" as you do most of the rest of his bullshit.

[vy65]

Posting pictures and going on irrelevant rants does not an argument make. You seem incapable of answering pretty simple questions -- I don't know how posting a picture of the bible answers the question of what you define Christianity as -- and are intent to making sweeping generalizations about Christian belief, dogma, and intellectualism.

And for the record, just because you disagree with certain intellectuals thought doesn't mean that "Christianity tends towards anti-intellectualism." The fact that you disagree and can have a discussion about Kierkegaard, Kant, etc...'s ouvre kinda proves you wrong.

[vy65]

Oh and to the subjective Christians I submit Paul's 2nd letter to Timothy chapter 3 verse 16



Now I agree that Paul was full of shit but I guess you can always go for a figurative interpretation of "is profitable for doctrine... for instruction" as you do most of the rest of his bullshit.

So?

[ElNono]

Why are you entertaining made up numbers concerning 'good' deeds versus 'bad' deeds?

Because it's this or going back to work... :lol

[vy65]

Wait, I think I figured it out. Christianity (meaning those who read the bible), by virtue of its dogma (still don't know what that is) is anti-intellectual because the shit in the bible couldn't have possibly happened. Is that your argument?

[Phenomanul]

As for the individual, if you want to accept human physiology on the one hand and believe in immaculate conception and resurrection then yes that makes you irrational or at the very least grossly inconsistent in your rationale.

So in a nutshell your world (and rational thought) is defined solely by what can be explained naturalistically; or rather that everything can only be defined naturalistically. By proxy, belief in the supernatural makes one irrational.

So be it.

Just know that not everything can be explained naturalistically... When science encroaches on the origins issue for example, it is no longer science, but speculation. That's why I chuckle every time RG brings up his clichéd "GOD-of-the-Gaps fallacy" argument (as if somehow repeating the phrase makes the failed analogy any more valid)...

His atheistic world view (and yours I imagine) are governed by the hope that "Science-will-discover-a-solely-naturalistic-origins-process-to-fill-in-the-Gaps," because as of now, after much search and scientific interference, such a process doesn't exist.

But whatever, you can't define a world view based on what your limited understanding believes is possible...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Posting pictures and going on irrelevant rants does not an argument make. You seem incapable of answering pretty simple questions -- I don't know how posting a picture of the bible answers the question of what you define Christianity as -- and are intent to making sweeping generalizations about Christian belief, dogma, and intellectualism.

And for the record, just because you disagree with certain intellectuals thought doesn't mean that "Christianity tends towards anti-intellectualism." The fact that you disagree and can have a discussion about Kierkegaard, Kant, etc...'s ouvre kinda proves you wrong.

What is christian dogma is answered with a picture of the Bible and you cannot figure it out? Christian dogma is the bible stupid.

You cannot figure out how a scripture stating that scripture is doctrine inspired by God that means christian dogma requires literal interpretation?

You do not actually want to defend the christian scientists in any way specifically you just make a generalization on my actual arguments. Thomas Aquinas was the subject of the OP. He literally inserted scripture as a requirement of acceptable rational pursuits. You know the whole fucking rationalism versus empiricism thing.

You are a lawyer so I know you have had training if not experience in at least how to address arguments. That you respond to my direct responses to your contentions with summations that try to characterize is very telling and very boring. You don't want to concede the argument but you also do not want to really have it.

Fine. If you want to go back to my post and actually talk about your Christian thinkers or whether or not the Bible is a fair definition of 'christian dogma' then fine. If you want to do another 'summation' I will ignore it.

[LnGrrrR]

Just because science may not determine an answer, doesn't mean that answer has to be filled in by GAWUHD.

[redzero]

Stop using that fallacy if you don't want to be called out on it.

[vy65]

What is christian dogma is answered with a picture of the Bible and you cannot figure it out? Christian dogma is the bible stupid.

Dogma is a defined set of beliefs. Not all branches of Christianity follow the same beliefs (e.g., the Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church is not the same as Catholic Canon Law). The fact that you can't differentiate one from the other and are intent on posting pics of the bible just confirms your overgeneralization.


You cannot figure out how a scripture stating that scripture is doctrine inspired by God that means christian dogma requires literal interpretation?

I'm not aware of such a requirement. Can you please quote me some text?



You do not actually want to defend the christian scientists in any way specifically you just make a generalization on my actual arguments. Thomas Aquinas was the subject of the OP. He literally inserted scripture as a requirement of acceptable rational pursuits. You know the whole fucking rationalism versus empiricism thing.

Christian scientists (whatever that means) aren't the point. The point was your claim that "christianity tends towards anti-intellectualism." I think Godot will arrive before you clarify what that statement meant.


You are a lawyer so I know you have had training if not experience in at least how to address arguments. That you respond to my direct responses to your contentions with summations that try to characterize is very telling and very boring. You don't want to concede the argument but you also do not want to really have it.

My being a lawyer has nothing to do with this. I'm more than willing to have an argument with you -- but you have to answer my question first and not go off on tangential rants about irrelevant shit.


Fine. If you want to go back to my post and actually talk about your Christian thinkers or whether or not the Bible is a fair definition of 'christian dogma' then fine. If you want to do another 'summation' I will ignore it.

That's not the question. I don't know how to make it any clearer than this:

Is Christianity (according to your definition, "people who read the bible"), by virtue of its dogma (still waiting for that one) anti-intellectual because the shit in the bible couldn't have possibly happened. Is that your argument?

This really shouldn't have been this difficult. I honestly don't know why you won't answer a simple clarificatory question.

[RandomGuy]

I find this completely ridiculous. Regardless of the church, or the viewpoints of christianity that you disagree with, to not appreciate all the good that has come from jesus' teachings. To put the hundreds of millons of people who have been helped by the charities of people who live through the morals taught by jesus, in the same belittling term as lord of the rings. To dismiss the millions of people who live a vow of poverty and spend their entire life helping because it is a "religion" is the most asinine thing I have ever seen from an intelligent person.

You say that as if people don't have the capacity to help the poor and suffering without instructions to do so.

They do.

I don't need any religious teaching to tell me what is good and decent.

So if it is possible to do good things without being told to do so, then we can safely say that it is impossible to tell what good would have been done in the absence of these teachings.

Implicit in thinking about the good is thinking about the bad. While I can't say that people, in the absence of religion would not kill anyone, I can quite easily say that burning someone at the stake for heresy, or any other of a myriad of things the early church did would have happened.

There is even a case to be made that the shoveling of people into ovens by the millions can be laid at the feet of religious intolerence as well.

Not sure I buy that argument entirely, but the fact that it can be made at least somewhat plausibly is damning enough.

[RandomGuy]

Posting pictures and going on irrelevant rants does not an argument make.

Heh, welcome to the Internet. :lol

[RandomGuy]

So in a nutshell your world (and rational thought) is defined solely by what can be explained naturalistically; or rather that everything can only be defined naturalistically. By proxy, belief in the supernatural makes one irrational.

So be it.

Just know that not everything can be explained naturalistically... When science encroaches on the origins issue for example, it is no longer science, but speculation. That's why I chuckle every time RG brings up his clichéd "GOD-of-the-Gaps fallacy" argument (as if somehow repeating the phrase makes the failed analogy any more valid)...

His atheistic world view (and yours I imagine) are governed by the hope that "Science-will-discover-a-solely-naturalistic-origins-process-to-fill-in-the-Gaps," because as of now, after much search and scientific interference, such a process doesn't exist.

But whatever, you can't define a world view based on what your limited understanding believes is possible...

You keep whining about me bringing it up, but then turn around and bring it up again.

Your obvious implication:

"Because science has not explained abiogenesis perfectly, it must be wrong.
If science is wrong, then the Bible must be right."

Yes or no, is that what you are implying??

If not, then clarify.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Dogma is a defined set of beliefs. Not all branches of Christianity follow the same beliefs (e.g., the Divine Liturgy of the Armenian Church is not the same as Catholic Canon Law). The fact that you can't differentiate one from the other and are intent on posting pics of the bible just confirms your overgeneralization.

What is the written commonality between them? The Divine Liturgy and Catholic Canon are not fairly described as 'christian dogma.' You actually going to acknowledge that the Bible is being discussed?


I'm not aware of such a requirement. Can you please quote me some text?

2nd Timothy Chapter 3 verse 16. I already quoted it.


Christian scientists (whatever that means) aren't the point. The point was your claim that "christianity tends towards anti-intellectualism." I think Godot will arrive before you clarify what that statement meant.

You brought them up. I didn't. They were horrible examples as I outlined how their approaches and rigor to doctrine impeded free thought. Thats how "Christianity tends to anti-intellectalism.' Thomas Aquinas was church policy up to and for a time after the reformation. How do you think Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe or Kepler were impacted by such policy?


My being a lawyer has nothing to do with this. I'm more than willing to have an argument with you -- but you have to answer my question first and not go off on tangential rants about irrelevant shit.

You bring up CS Lewis and my response is a tangent? Whatevs. You go ahead and be coy. You actually directly responding to things is all i give a shit about.


That's not the question. I don't know how to make it any clearer than this:

Is Christianity (according to your definition, "people who read the bible"), by virtue of its dogma (still waiting for that one) anti-intellectual because the shit in the bible couldn't have possibly happened. Is that your argument?

This really shouldn't have been this difficult. I honestly don't know why you won't answer a simple clarificatory question.

Simple? Its three parts and you've been making it up as you go along. the people and the institutions that use the at least the four gospels amongst their canon would be a fair definition.

My argument is the same as empiricism versus rationalism that is presented in the OP. When you try to force dogma to fit, its anti-intellectual because the bible is unreliable as source material.

The people and institutions that use at least the four gospels amongst their canon have a long history of doing this. Examples include but are not limited to the Cyril of Alexandria, Spanish Inquisition, the epistemology of Kierkegaard and Aquinas as Rationalism, and the Texas Board of Education in 2010.

[vy65]

What is the written commonality between them? The Divine Liturgy and Catholic Canon are not fairly described as 'christian dogma.' You actually going to acknowledge that the Bible is being discussed?

That's a glib and ridiculously superficial response. As far as I'm aware, Methodist Dogma does not adhere to the principle of transubstantiation. But for your purposes, It is no different than Russian Orthodoxy because they both follow the bible.

And this is besides the point - which was how can you overgeneralize all Christian dogma? Your answer really is trite to the point of ridiculousness.


2nd Timothy Chapter 3 verse 16. I already quoted it.

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Don't see it. Explain yourself.


You brought them up. I didn't. They were horrible examples as I outlined how their approaches and rigor to doctrine impeded free thought. Thats how "Christianity tends to anti-intellectalism.' Thomas Aquinas was church policy up to and for a time after the reformation. How do you think Copernicus, Galileo, Brahe or Kepler were impacted by such policy?

Actually, you used the term "Christian Scientist" without, once again, defining it. I brought up a number of thinkers whose philosophies were inspired by Christianity to, you know, show how the claim Christianity is anti-intellectual is horse shit.


Simple? Its three parts and you've been making it up as you go along. the people and the institutions that use the at least the four gospels amongst their canon would be a fair definition.

It was your claim - not mine - so don't complain that you have a lot of explaining to do.


My argument is the same as empiricism versus rationalism that is presented in the OP. When you try to force dogma to fit, its anti-intellectual because the bible is unreliable as source material.

Can you explain something without using jargon that can mean any number of different things to different people? In your view, what does empiricism and rationalism mean? What do you mean "force dogma to fit," i.e., what is it trying to fit?

To me, your argument basically is: Christianity is anti-intellectual because everything that doesn't fit the Christian world-view is discounted. The only problem with that claim is that it doesn't describe how a lot of Christians think. And it ignores the long history of thinkers who have been inspired by Christianity to produce intellectual works - like Kant, Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis, etc...

And ironically, you're just as guilty of doing what you lambast "Christianity" for doing: you think your "rational/logical" world view is the only correct (read, intellectual) one and refuse to accept any other way of viewing the world as acceptable, much less tolerable. There's no room for pluralism in either world-view.


The people and institutions that use at least the four gospels amongst their canon have a long history of doing this. Examples include but are not limited to the Cyril of Alexandria, Spanish Inquisition, the epistemology of Kierkegaard and Aquinas as Rationalism, and the Texas Board of Education in 2010.

This makes absolutely no sense. You're now talking about Christian Institutions and not Christian Dogma. Are the two the same? And if so, why? Why would the Cyril of Alexandria (whose relevance here is a mystery) and the Spanish Inquisition exemplify Christianity to the point of us being able to say all Christianity stifles intellectual thought? Or Kierkegaard, or Aquinas, or the (lol) Texas Board of Education?

Or is your claim that Christianity requires an absolutist world-view that allowed institutions to do bad shit (like the inquisition) and stifle thought? If so, why isn't that true of any institution?

And last I checked, Texas Board of Education wasn't representative of Christianity seeing as how its a state institution.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's a glib and ridiculously superficial response. As far as I'm aware, Methodist Dogma does not adhere to the principle of transubstantiation. But for your purposes, It is no different than Russian Orthodoxy because they both follow the bible.

And this is besides the point - which was how can you overgeneralize all Christian dogma? Your answer really is trite to the point of ridiculousness.

I never said anything about equivalence. I put them in the same set. Its like saying that you and your brother are of the same family. That does not mean equivalence.

I completely understand that the various sects choose different snippets and try and give them preeminence or any manner of degree. I am just going to what makes Christians, Christians. If you don't have the gospels in your canon then you are not Christian.

Quite frankly, I would expand that to include all exclusionary religions and islam and judaism are of the same vein but you wanted a definition and so i gave you one.

If you want to agree that the Bible is shitty source material then we are not arguing about anything.


Don't see it. Explain yourself.

scripture is given by god. scripture is profitable for doctrine. I cannot dumb it down better than that.


Actually, you used the term "Christian Scientist" without, once again, defining it. I brought up a number of thinkers whose philosophies were inspired by Christianity to, you know, show how the claim Christianity is anti-intellectual is horse shit.

Fine the term christian scientist sucks. I won't use it again. Your christian 'thinkers' specifically Aquinas and Kierkegaard were antintellectual for the same reasons that you still do not even acknowledge.


It was your claim - not mine - so don't complain that you have a lot of explaining to do.

You didn't take issue with it so whats to explain?


Can you explain something without using jargon that can mean any number of different things to different people? In your view, what does empiricism and rationalism mean? What do you mean "force dogma to fit," i.e., what is it trying to fit?

empiricism is the idea that all knowledge is from sensory perception and the interrelationship of such impressions. it excludes or at best is skeptical of the notion of a priori. Think Hume and his treatise on understanding

rationalism is the notion that there is a priori knowledge. Kant for example spoke of a guiding force that drove us to make the 'interrelationship of such impressions' in his critique of pure reason. Aquinas, Kierkegaard and that ilk inserted doctrine as a priori. Thus the statement of them as rationalism


To me, your argument basically is: Christianity is anti-intellectual because everything that doesn't fit the Christian world-view is discounted. The only problem with that claim is that it doesn't describe how a lot of Christians think. And it ignores the long history of thinkers who have been inspired by Christianity to produce intellectual works - like Kant, Kierkegaard, C.S. Lewis, etc...

And to me your argument is basically to ignore my arguments about those guys, discount them as tangents and then try and pass them off later anyway.

Some christians do not but some do and many of the institutions do and in a pluralist society its bad. There is a long history of it.


And ironically, you're just as guilty of doing what you lambast "Christianity" for doing: you think your "rational/logical" world view is the only correct (read, intellectual) one and refuse to accept any other way of viewing the world as acceptable, much less tolerable. There's no room for pluralism in either world-view.[quote]

What is my world view? i have made no claims of such. I personally a skeptic when it comes to rational frameworks but i have made no assertions on it.

[quote]This makes absolutely no sense. You're now talking about Christian Institutions and not Christian Dogma. Are the two the same? And if so, why? Why would the Cyril of Alexandria (whose relevance here is a mystery) and the Spanish Inquisition exemplify Christianity to the point of us being able to say all Christianity stifles intellectual thought? Or Kierkegaard, or Aquinas, or the (lol) Texas Board of Education?

Or is your claim that Christianity requires an absolutist world-view that allowed institutions to do bad shit (like the inquisition) and stifle thought? If so, why isn't that true of any institution?

And last I checked, Texas Board of Education wasn't representative of Christianity seeing as how its a state institution.

Its not a universal claim on all individuals. a set is not necessarily homogenous. fact is that when christians try to force their dogma bad things happen. they have a long history of doing just that up to including modern times.

[ploto]

It really is pretty simple to me. The Bible is a religious book- it is inspired by God for spiritual teaching and truths; for instruction in righteousness. It is not a science book.

Fundamentalism is an American-born movement of the late 19th-early 20th century. The majority of Christians in the world are not Fundamentalists.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It really is pretty simple to me. The Bible is a religious book- it is inspired by God for spiritual teaching and truths; for instruction in righteousness. It is not a science book.

Fundamentalism is an American-born movement of the late 19th-early 20th century. The majority of Christians in the world are not Fundamentalists.

Why is science separate from the spiritual? That is exactly what I am talking about when I say that Christianity limits freedom of thought. It does not want to be scrutinized for obvious reasons.

That type of rationale is precisely what I am talking about in regards to Kierkegaard. God as the Wizard of Oz.

[z0sa]

If you embrace either party or their candidates you are a simpleton. Both parties consist of a bunch of power and money hungry fucks who would say or do anything for your support as long as they could explain any criticism away.

[Blake]

Fundamentalism is an American-born movement of the late 19th-early 20th century. The majority of Christians in the world are not Fundamentalists.

It apparently took a few hundred years for people to start realizing that the Bible had some freaky stuff in it that made no sense, which in turn led to them questioning Christianity.

No real surprise at the rise of fundamental movements and revivals during that time frame.

[Spurminator]

I thought of this thread's title when I saw this campaign spot from Rick Perry. It doesn't get much more simpleton than this.

0PAJNntoRgA

[EVAY]

I thought of this thread's title when I saw this campaign spot from Rick Perry. It doesn't get much more simpleton than this.

0PAJNntoRgA

I don't normally get upset about campaign ads because, let's face it, they are generally more idiotic than offensive. This one, I admit, is offensive.

[LnGrrrR]

What a fucking idiot Perry is. Fuck him.

[DarkReign]

Does that shit actually get fucking play in Texas?!

Oh my God!

Wow. I double-dog dare someone in a podunk state like Michigan to try that shit and actually believe they might win an election...any election.

[ElNono]

Does that shit actually get fucking play in Texas?!


It's another world out there... smh

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Its leading up to the Iowa and NH caucus/primary whatever the fuck the particular state calls them. Thats where they would be aired.

It won GW an election. People are stupid. Lets treat people like shit because of Pauls letter to Tim and the doctrine of a 3000 year old priest class.

[DarrinS]

Does that shit actually get fucking play in Texas?!

Oh my God!

Wow. I double-dog dare someone in a podunk state like Michigan to try that shit and actually believe they might win an election...any election.


I've never seen it on TV.

[DarrinS]

Its leading up to the Iowa and NH caucus/primary whatever the fuck the particular state calls them. Thats where they would be aired.

It won GW an election. People are stupid. Lets treat people like shit because of Pauls letter to Tim and the doctrine of a 3000 year old priest class.


GW won the election because the Dems had a shitty candidate. Same reason Obama won in 2008 and why he will win again in 2012.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

GW won the election because the Dems had a shitty candidate. Same reason Obama won in 2008 and why he will win again in 2012.

Its not an individual cause. If you do not recognize that GW's campaign pandered to the Christian right in a similar manner or that they comprised much of his base then you are being your typical intentionally obtuse self.