The fatal flaw of Republicanism

[RandomGuy]

Their self-imposed information bubble.

I have been saying for years that they are harming themselves by not paying attention to information sources they disagree with, or dismissing such information outright. The words "confirmation bias" ring a bell?

The steady stream of op-ed pieces and forwarded chain emails that get posted here as some sort of self-evident, begging-the-question truth seems to be all that Yonivore et al, do.

No few amount of outside observers have reached that same conclusion, and man was it evident election night.

Personally, I think the streak of evangelicals and religious nutters infect the right wing with an inability to accept new information and adapt to change. The very nature of conservatism resists change.

Yet change happens, however one might wish it not to.

The self-professed party of personal responsibility blames everybody else for their loss. The media ("the refs were biased" anyone?), lazy brown people, etc.

I really don't see Republicans saying the kinds of things that would indicate they understand their predicament. The world, and our country, have changed, are changing, and will continue to do so.

Maybe the Republican party isn't doomed to obsolescence, but right now it is really looking that way.

My 2 cents.

[DarrinS]

xhblsFPVRys

[boutons_deux]

The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."

I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism.

He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore."

He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out.

We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Rove

:lol

[HeatChamps]

The idea is obsolete. Some people like to live in the 40's. Times have changed. Weed will soon be legal. No matter how fucking hard they try for it not to be.

[ChumpDumper]

xhblsFPVRysDarriin unwittingly proves the OP right.

[boutons_deux]

"No matter how fucking hard they try for it not to be"

The racist "Christians" know damn well corrupt cops and prosecutors pad their careers busting blacks and browns for possession.

Those loveable, loving "Christians" are intent on enforcing their morality and racism everywhere, because God told them to.

The "Christians" and law enforcement industry, along with the wealth PIC, will attack, probably successfully any politicians who propose or support mj/hemp legalization.

iow, don't "hold your breath" about legalization. mj will remain Schedule I for many years to come.

[Clipper Nation]

BOTH parties have the same information-bubble tactic... how else could they possibly convince people to keep voting for them?

[101A]

BOTH parties have the same information-bubble tactic... how else could they possibly convince people to keep voting for them?

This.

I do agree, however, that Republicans are behind the curve on majority opinions on social issue. That said, if the Republicans were to simply change their views, moderate them to more progressive ones, the (it IS a large number) social conservatives would not have a home - anywhere to go.

I don't believe it serves to substitute a party stuck in an echo chamber, with a nation stuck in one.

[boutons_deux]

BOTH parties have the same information-bubble tactic... how else could they possibly convince people to keep voting for them?

bullshit, typical right-winger false equivalence.

racist, xenophobe, safety-net Repugs are getting demographically marginalized, destroyed.

Even hardcore xenophobe bully Hannity is already a singing different song about the illegal immigrant problem.

The 1% Haves are fantastically out numbed by the 99% Have-Nots, esp blacks and browns. The brilliance of the Repugs, going back to Nixon/Atwater's Souther Racist Recruiting Strategy, has been to sucker bubba/Christian HaveNots with social/racist issues into voting for the Repugs, which is against the HaveNots own best interest.

[101A]

Even hardcore xenophobe bully Hannity is already a singing different song about the illegal immigrant problem.

He's evolving.

Gonna see a lot of that, IMO.

[Drachen]

He's evolving.

Gonna see a lot of that, IMO.

Exactly the verbiage he used...

Yesterday someone I went to school with for my undergrad, a person I refer to as "Super Republican" because not only does she hold the party dear, but she puts her time where her mouth is and volunteers for campaigns, is part of a republican club, etc threw a post on FB about changing the way we elect the president to 50 states=50 electoral votes, 1 vote per state. I dismantled it first (would you want 1 hawaiian to = 18.5 texans? I am not ready to abandon 1 person, 1 vote), then told her that this was the type of thinking that would fade the republicans out. They need to change their message, etc. Eventually she ended up agreeing with me and admitted that she was still upset and doesnt want to change a thing about the process (after which I informed her that romney would have lost under her suggested plan too), but I think even the most staunch of them are at least considering that their platform, not their communicating ability is to blame. We shall see.

[boutons_deux]

"50 states=50 electoral votes, 1 vote per state."

hard-core Repugs are truly soft-brained.

the Senate and Electoral College already non proportional representation, and need to be fixed. Why should two Senators from ME have as much vote as 2 Senators from NY, TX, CA, IL?

[RandomGuy]

xhblsFPVRys

... and thanks demonstrating your inability to seek information outside your narrative.

Even when you are led to water, you can't drink.

(shrugs)

That fatal flaw will be your party's undoing, and even when this fatal flaw is pointed out to you directly, the nature of that flaw does not allow you to recognize it.

Carry on, man, carry on. Nothing to see here.

smh

[boutons_deux]

Repug party is full of assholes like this one

Peter Morrison, Texas GOP Official, Calls For 'Amicable Divorce' From 'Maggots' Who Voted For Obama
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/09/peter-morrison-texas-divorce_n_2100165.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

[RandomGuy]

BOTH parties have the same information-bubble tactic... how else could they possibly convince people to keep voting for them?

More lazy "they are both the same" cynicism.

It isn't a tactic, and both parties are not equal when it comes to rejecting new information.

The Democrats do not have the evangelical stratum that so badly limits right-wing thinking about new information and change. Sorry.

When you get a stage of candidates with men who deny evolution, you have a good indication that new information is not being processed.

t4Cc8t3Zd5E

This includes Ron Paul:

6JyvkjSKMLw

[ploto]

It does seem that this time around, Republicans were especially housed within a bubble that eliminated exposure to any information that did not support their views. I have read several accounts about just how shocked and stunned Romney and Ryan were on election night. They believed Karl Rove and Dick Morris with their choir of a Romney landslide. On the other hand, the McCain campaign had a more realistic view of what was going on.

I think the part that bothers me the most is the energy spent having to try to convince them of facts. Facts do not have 2 sides. They are facts. But you can not even begin to have a discussion with someone who will not accept basic truths as a starting point. A man who truly believes that women do not get pregnant from rape or from incest or that the mother's life or health are never in jeopardy can not begin to discuss rationally how to approach the issue of abortion. People who refuse to believe anything about climate change and who laugh at the notion of rising ocean levels can not even engage in a discussion about energy or environmental policy.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darriin unwittingly proves the OP right.

Critical thinking certainly is not his strong suit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

More lazy "they are both the same" cynicism.

It isn't a tactic, and both parties are not equal when it comes to rejecting new information.

The Democrats do not have the evangelical stratum that so badly limits right-wing thinking about new information and change. Sorry.

When you get a stage of candidates with men who deny evolution, you have a good indication that new information is not being processed.

It's not lazy and for the most part it's accurate. Both parties have their corporate overlords but the GOP also has the dogmatic christians of the evangelical right and they are the ones that bring in a heavy does the irrational.

And it's not a 'fatal' flaw. The notion of faith is you believe in stupid shit even if you are given no empirical reason to do so. Christians brag to each ohter about not being overcome when their 'faith is tested' and how they did not succumb. To them this type of blashpemy is the devil and they are all teaching their children at the million or so sunday school sessions every weekend.

And this thread is like a poorly hidden

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b3/Mouse_Trap_Board_and_Boxjpg.jpg/250px-Mouse_Trap_Board_and_Boxjpg.jpg

[DarrinS]

... and thanks demonstrating your inability to seek information outside your narrative.

Even when you are led to water, you can't drink.

(shrugs)

That fatal flaw will be your party's undoing, and even when this fatal flaw is pointed out to you directly, the nature of that flaw does not allow you to recognize it.

Carry on, man, carry on. Nothing to see here.

smh



FATAL FLAW!

ATTACK WATCH!


By the way, Romney won the over 30 crowd. Maybe Millienials are just smarter than everyone else.

[ChumpDumper]

FATAL FLAW!

ATTACK WATCH!


By the way, Romney won the over 30 crowd. Maybe Millienials are just smarter than everyone else.They lost.

[Drachen]

you mean the over 40 crowd.

[DarrinS]

you mean the over 40 crowd.

If only people over 30 voted, Romney would've won.

[Clipper Nation]

More lazy "they are both the same" cynicism.

It isn't a tactic, and both parties are not equal when it comes to rejecting new information.
If that's the case, why do Democrats still insist on the same old '60s-era quasi-socialist schtick? If there wasn't a total information bubble for the Democrats, they'd realize that government coercion is almost always immoral, wrong, and spawns unintended consequences, tbh...


This includes Ron Paul:

6JyvkjSKMLw
Unlike neocons, Ron wouldn't use the law to force his religious views on the American populace... imho, I don't care what a candidate's religious views are unless it biases their governance...

[boutons_deux]

"same old '60s-era quasi-socialist schtick"

which is?

[101A]

More lazy "they are both the same" cynicism.

It isn't a tactic, and both parties are not equal when it comes to rejecting new information.

The Democrats do not have the evangelical stratum that so badly limits right-wing thinking about new information and change. Sorry.

When you get a stage of candidates with men who deny evolution, you have a good indication that new information is not being processed.

t4Cc8t3Zd5E

This includes Ron Paul:

6JyvkjSKMLw

Why do you not play the unedited version, RG?

I had never seen that before from Paul - but I recognize cutting when I hear it.

[101A]

I think the part that bothers me the most is the energy spent having to try to convince them of facts. Facts do not have 2 sides. They are facts. But you can not even begin to have a discussion with someone who will not accept basic truths as a starting point. A man who truly believes that women do not get pregnant from rape or from incest or that the mother's life or health are never in jeopardy can not begin to discuss rationally how to approach the issue of abortion. People who refuse to believe anything about climate change and who laugh at the notion of rising ocean levels can not even engage in a discussion about energy or environmental policy.

What, pray tell, do you want to do about the ignorance of the electorate?

Comes with democracy.

[Drachen]

If only people over 30 voted, Romney would've won.

but only because of those over 65. Obama won the demographic all the way up to 45. Romney won the next set (up to 65) by a small amount, then those over 65 by an enormous amount. Meaning that if this exact election happened in 12 or 16 years, Romney might have pulled a Dukakis or worse

[symple19]

Please... The Democrats were "fatally flawed" and "doomed" after 94'. We've heard this before, about both parties. Hooray for knee jerk reactions and myopic viewpoints.

There have been extended periods throughout American history where one party dominated while another floundered, yet within our system the down and out party always found a way, eventually, to claw its way back to the top.

There is nothing on the horizon I see that would change this trend short of the emergence of a viable 3rd party. Repubs have too much money and power to just fade away without somebody else filling the vacuum. This country, despite its past few elections, is still a slightly right of center nation politically. While it may take more than a cycle or two, possibly more, I certainly expect Repubs to make their way back to the top and we'll be listening to Darrin/Yoni etc make these same idiotic threads about dems.

All that said, I do agree with the OP on several of his points, chiefly the negative impact of social/religious conservatives.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

All the conservative pundits are saying they need to educate liberals and others who don't follow their values. They blame their failure on everything but themselves.

[RandomGuy]

If that's the case, why do Democrats still insist on the same old '60s-era quasi-socialist schtick? If there wasn't a total information bubble for the Democrats, they'd realize that government coercion is almost always immoral, wrong, and spawns unintended consequences, tbh...


Unlike neocons, Ron wouldn't use the law to force his religious views on the American populace... imho, I don't care what a candidate's religious views are unless it biases their governance...

You can't be that religious and NOT have it affect your governance.

You have more faith in Ron Paul than I would put in him.

[RandomGuy]

Why do you not play the unedited version, RG?

I had never seen that before from Paul - but I recognize cutting when I hear it.

Is there an unedited version?

To be honest, I didn't put a whole lot of effort into it. I was quite lazy, and just took the first hit that looked to answer the question, mostly because I don't really care too much, other than to irritate Paulbots, which I accomplished. :D

[RandomGuy]

If that's the case, why do Democrats still insist on the same old '60s-era quasi-socialist schtick? If there wasn't a total information bubble for the Democrats, they'd realize that government coercion is almost always immoral, wrong, and spawns unintended consequences, tbh...

Don't ask me to prove a negative.

If you think the Democrats live in an information bubble of some sort that doesn't let information in, and don't occasionally change their minds when given good reasons to, feel free to show me how.

If you want to do that, you will have to define "quasi-socialism", and then start showing general thoughts from prominent Democrats along those lines.

I have accused you of lazy cynicism. All I need for that criticism to stick is for you to not bother backing up your case. Personally, I would like to be wrong about that. I am wrong occasionally. Up to you man.

[boutons_deux]

Another huge Repug fault, not GAF about Human-Americans

Florida’s GOP Secretary Of State Has No Regrets, Won’t Say He’s Sorry For Massive Voting Lines (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/09/1173061/floridas-gop-secretary-of-state-has-no-regrets-wont-say-hes-sorry-for-massive-voting-lines/)DETZNER: Well, let me point out that, while the days were cut, the number of hours were not. We still maintained 96 hours of voting, and it created greater flexibility for the supervisors. Uh, for the first time ever voters could vote during the day for 12 hours during the day, and I can tell you I heard feedback from voters going into election day that they liked the opportunity to vote either in the morning before work or after work. And frankly, I think the turnout is a good representation of the fact that people liked the voting hours and the flexibility that the supervisors had.

There is something truly absurd about Detzner’s claim that the fact that people did not decide to give up their most fundamental right somehow reflects their satisfaction with a massive failure of governance. It should go without saying that when someone has to wait six hours to cast a ballot, their government failed them, and no amount of spin can defend a decision not to make more opportunities to vote available. As Florida’s former Republican Gov. Charlie Crist said last Sunday, Gov. Rick Scott’s (R-FL) refusal to extend early voting is “unconscionable” and “the only thing that makes any sense as to why this is happening and being done is voter suppression (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/04/charlie-crist-rick-scott-florida-early-voting_n_2073661.html).”


Crist is almost undoubtedly correct. The Obama campaign made early voting a key prong of their turnout strategy, and many low-income voters who tend to vote Democratic are disenfranchised without early voting because they lack the job flexibility to cast a ballot on election day (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/07/1148751/meet-the-nations-five-worst-election-officials/).

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/09/1173061/floridas-gop-secretary-of-state-has-no-regrets-wont-say-hes-sorry-for-massive-voting-lines/

Who expects anything better from a Repug state governed by a corporate criminal who stole $Bs from Medicare/Medicaid?

[RandomGuy]

All the conservative pundits are saying they need to educate liberals and others who don't follow their values. They blame their failure on everything but themselves.

It sounds just like the twoofers, "if they just watched ma yootoobs, they would realize how right I am".

[DarrinS]

It sounds just like the twoofers, "if they just watched ma yootoobs, they would realize how right I am".



More lazy "they are both the same" cynicism.

It isn't a tactic, and both parties are not equal when it comes to rejecting new information.

The Democrats do not have the evangelical stratum that so badly limits right-wing thinking about new information and change. Sorry.

When you get a stage of candidates with men who deny evolution, you have a good indication that new information is not being processed.

t4Cc8t3Zd5E

This includes Ron Paul:

6JyvkjSKMLw

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FATAL FLAW!

ATTACK WATCH!


By the way, Romney won the over 30 crowd. Maybe Millienials are just smarter than everyone else.

It was the over 40 and i would say that this election went a long way in demonstrating how ineffective that demographic is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please... The Democrats were "fatally flawed" and "doomed" after 94'. We've heard this before, about both parties. Hooray for knee jerk reactions and myopic viewpoints.

There have been extended periods throughout American history where one party dominated while another floundered, yet within our system the down and out party always found a way, eventually, to claw its way back to the top.

There is nothing on the horizon I see that would change this trend short of the emergence of a viable 3rd party. Repubs have too much money and power to just fade away without somebody else filling the vacuum. This country, despite its past few elections, is still a slightly right of center nation politically. While it may take more than a cycle or two, possibly more, I certainly expect Repubs to make their way back to the top and we'll be listening to Darrin/Yoni etc make these same idiotic threads about dems.

All that said, I do agree with the OP on several of his points, chiefly the negative impact of social/religious conservatives.

The Democrats changed their tune after losing their congressional seats in 94. Clinton especially as he changed his tenor and started cooperating with GOP congressmen. It's a big reason why he won in 96.

If the GOP maintains the status quo then they are fucked. This is doubly so in the party of middle-aged white men where 'winning isn't everything; it's the only thing.'

[ChuckD]

If only people over 30 voted, Romney would've won.

Obama could have pitched a fifty state shutout if only black people could vote. Fortunately, his campaign was grounded in reality.

[HeatChamps]

More old Republicans die each year. Thus a big portion of the Republican population is slowly dying. haha

[Clipper Nation]

You can't be that religious and NOT have it affect your governance.
Yes you can... it's called leaving social issues to the states instead of the federal gub'mint rushing in to save the day...

[boutons_deux]

More old Republicans die each year. Thus a big portion of the Republican population is slowly dying. haha

civil rights apply to all Human-Americans, "Interstate Civil Rights", absolutely shouldn't be left to (red) states, and certainly not compromised/elected (red state supreme court) judges intimidated by ignorant, uneducated, low-wage, text-worshipping bubbas.

[RandomGuy]

Yes you can... it's called leaving social issues to the states instead of the federal gub'mint rushing in to save the day...

I was saying that once you start taking things "on faith" it f***s with your ability to figure out what is real and what is not. That kind of mental crippling has got to have SOME effect, I would think.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/9895/lightbox/TMW2012-11-14colorKOS.png?1352493572

[DarrinS]

RG points out Republican confirmation bias by posting a cartoon that confirms this belief.

[RandomGuy]

RG points out Republican confirmation bias by posting a cartoon that confirms this belief.

Ironic isn't it?

I would point out though, that quite a few outside observers have marveled at the rights ability to delude itself during this cycle, and have pointed this out as well.

At what point, when you get more than a few smart people telling you something, do you start to ask yourself if they have a point?

Given I am asking this from the side of the house that denies both evolution, physics, and AGW.

[RandomGuy]

Case in point, is that the Republican party chooses to put, ON THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE, Paul Braun. "evolution is a lie from the pit of hell"

oc12AE3Xta4

It is ONE thing to elect these kinds of people, but to put them on the committee that votes on science funding??? really???

irjuzmae1FU

[Phenomanul]

You can't be that religious and NOT have it affect your governance.



You know... you'd have to be willing to concede that this dynamic works both ways (i.e. that a-religious folks let said perspective/stance affect their governance as well). Not that I expect you to agree with that observation. meh.

[Blake]

You know... you'd have to be willing to concede that this dynamic works both ways (i.e. that a-religious folks let said perspective/stance affect their governance as well). Not that I expect you to agree with that observation. meh.

just like my a-belief in Santa affects the same said governance.

You're a fucking idiot.

[Clipper Nation]

Ironic isn't it?
Yeah, it IS ironic that you can't make your case without resorting to the same tactics you're complaining about...

[RandomGuy]

You know... you'd have to be willing to concede that this dynamic works both ways (i.e. that a-religious folks let said perspective/stance affect their governance as well). Not that I expect you to agree with that observation. meh.

Sure, I would agree.

One would then have to figure out if, on balance, one's beliefs has an overall net positive or negative effect.

That, is probably where we would part ways.

Do you think that an atheist would make a good/bad president? If so, what basis would you have for that?

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, it IS ironic that you can't make your case without resorting to the same tactics you're complaining about...

Spoken like a true idiot.



What tactics I am complaining about again?

[DarrinS]

I'm just glad that RG does not suffer from confirmation bias and is not the partisan hack he accuses others of being.

[RandomGuy]

Don't ask me to prove a negative.

If you think the Democrats live in an information bubble of some sort that doesn't let information in, and don't occasionally change their minds when given good reasons to, feel free to show me how.

If you want to do that, you will have to define "quasi-socialism", and then start showing general thoughts from prominent Democrats along those lines.

I have accused you of lazy cynicism. All I need for that criticism to stick is for you to not bother backing up your case. Personally, I would like to be wrong about that. I am wrong occasionally. Up to you man.

Hmm.. I see a decided lack of defining and supporting. Guess I was not wrong about at least that much.

[DarrinS]

This thread has ZERO bias tbh

[RandomGuy]

I'm just glad that RG does not suffer from confirmation bias and is not the partisan hack he accuses others of being.

I am indeed being partisan. You win the prize.

I indeed have confirmation bias, somewhere, I'm sure.

The problem with your statement here, is that:

1) I can admit when Democrats get shit wrong, do bad things, or have bad policies
2) I can admit when Republicans get things right, do good things, and have good policies.

I can name a few things for both.

Hacks don't do that kind of things.

As for confirmation bias, that is a lot harder to defeat. One simply has to not totally filter out things one is not predisposed to agree with, and always try to figure out the underlying assumptions that you make when forming opinions. (edit) and evaluate evidence for that.

Analyzing others' is a really good place to start.

I am not, however, going to pretend I don't have a viewpoint. I do.

[101A]

One would then have to figure out if, on balance, one's beliefs has an overall net positive or negative effect.

Whatever one's belief; the fact that they have been elected president means that their belief, whatever it may be, is considered, at least for the moment, to most Americans, positive. Current Christian president included.


That, is probably where we would part ways.

Please 'splain


Do you think that an atheist would make a good/bad president? If so, what basis would you have for that?

Depends on the Atheist. If he is a crazy wild eyed screaming liberal? Bad President. If he is a thoughtful, non-ideologically rigid, reasonable person? Could be a good president.

[RandomGuy]

This thread has ZERO bias tbh

My observation of one of your collective problems.

That you think honest, frank criticism is "bias", supports the thesis of the OP. tbh

Do you think that the conservative movement really gives consideration to data that contradicts various viewpoints?

Can you provide some example of where conservatives have, based on new information, collectively changed their minds about something?

I can find a *few* examples to the contrary.

[RandomGuy]

Please 'splain

I imagine Pheno would probably say that being an atheist would automatically make someone a bad president.

I would not.

I would not, though, put words in the mans mouth, and let him accept/reject that thesis.

I would for the most part agree with your other statement. A firebrand atheist would not make a good president, in much the same way that Pat Robertson would not make a good president.

[101A]

My observation of one of your collective problems.

Do you think that the conservative movement really gives consideration to data that contradicts various viewpoints?



I don't think liberals are any (or certainly not much) better at this. How many government programs have to go exponentially over-budget and NOT accomplish what they were supposed to accomplish before a liberal will admit that they might be a mistake?

For instance, it is pretty apparent that, taken in total, the government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results.

Liberals don't even pause to consider that that MIGHT be true.

[symple19]

Hacks don't do that kind of things.

.

You're a fucking hack. Just own it and quit deluding yourself into thinking otherwise

[RandomGuy]

I don't think liberals are any (or certainly not much) better at this. How many government programs have to go exponentially over-budget and NOT accomplish what they were supposed to accomplish before a liberal will admit that they might be a mistake?

For instance, it is pretty apparent that, taken in total, the government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results.

Liberals don't even pause to consider that that MIGHT be true.

It might be true that "government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results".

I would be all for scrapping any program that, on balance, did more harm than good, if given some reasonable data to show that is the case.

The problem with such sentiment though, is that, exactly true to my opening thesis, when I talk to conservatives and libertarians about social programs, they almost universally NEVER admit ANY good that those programs do.

If you want to talk about ultimate efficacy, i.e. costs and benefits, and only consider costs and negatives, are you looking at all the information that you need to gauge efficacy?

[RandomGuy]

You're a fucking hack. Just own it and quit deluding yourself into thinking otherwise

As I said before, I have a specific viewpoint.

Can you accept that someone might have a point of view and be an advocate for that point of view and NOT be a hack?

Why or why not?

I.e. what differentiates someone with an opinion from a hack?


(edit)

I would point out, that I am willing to consider the possibility here that I am being a hack. Hell, if symple can make a good case, I might even change my mind/actions, as I would prefer not to be. I will not, however, simply accept the charge simply because someone on the internet says so.

[DarrinS]

I don't think liberals are any (or certainly not much) better at this. How many government programs have to go exponentially over-budget and NOT accomplish what they were supposed to accomplish before a liberal will admit that they might be a mistake?

For instance, it is pretty apparent that, taken in total, the government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results.

Liberals don't even pause to consider that that MIGHT be true.


Damn good point, but that may be my confirmation bias talking. :toast

[RandomGuy]

Damn good point, but that may be my confirmation bias talking. :toast

I would point out that it is a testable hypothesis. Get cracking.

Show me the evidence, and I will be voting for whomever can and will break the cycle of poverty, whatever the cause. It is too important to treat with unquestioned dogma, IMO.

[101A]

It might be true that "government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results".

I would be all for scrapping any program that, on balance, did more harm than good, if given some reasonable data to show that is the case.

The problem with such sentiment though, is that, exactly true to my opening thesis, when I talk to conservatives and libertarians about social programs, they almost universally NEVER admit ANY good that those programs do.

If you want to talk about ultimate efficacy, i.e. costs and benefits, and only consider costs and negatives, are you looking at all the information that you need to gauge efficacy?

You're not a real liberal; you're just a Democrat because you hate Republicans. There is still a streak of rationality to your views (however partisan they've been as of late).

[101A]

I would point out that it is a testable hypothesis. Get cracking.

Show me the evidence, and I will be voting for whomever can and will break the cycle of poverty, whatever the cause. It is too important to treat with unquestioned dogma, IMO.

We'll work on the data/hypothesis for the platform of our new party.:p: I think you would admit that the two parties as they exist have staked out positions (and rely on constituencies based on) their positions on the current programs to such a degree that any REAL reform would be difficult, if not impossible.

[RandomGuy]

You're not a real liberal; you're just a Democrat because you hate Republicans. There is still a streak of rationality to your views (however partisan they've been as of late).

Thanks.

I think... (bemused)

[boutons_deux]

"any REAL reform would be difficult, if not impossible"

aka, America is Fucked and UnFuckable

(c) 2010 - 2012 Unauthorized use prohibited)

[DarrinS]

"any REAL reform would be difficult, if not impossible"

aka, America is Fucked and UnFuckable

(c) 2010 - 2012 Unauthorized use prohibited)





RG's views on steroids.


Lol @ the copyright on your sig

[101A]

(c) 2010 - 2012 Unauthorized use prohibited)




Fucking Classic.

:lmao:rollin

[101A]

"any REAL reform would be difficult, if not impossible"

aka, America is Fucked and UnFuckable

(c) 2010 - 2012 Unauthorized use prohibited)




Can I get authorized (I have used it)

[boutons_deux]

Can I get authorized (I have used it)

Please give me your legal forwarding address. My lawyers will be in contact.

[Phenomanul]

Sure, I would agree.

One would then have to figure out if, on balance, one's beliefs has an overall net positive or negative effect.

That, is probably where we would part ways.

Do you think that an atheist would make a good/bad president? If so, what basis would you have for that?

It depends on many factors. The references for atheist leaders have been rather lackluster, and downright scary... you know, your typical run-o-the-mill totalitarian tyrant.

Joseph Stalin
Mao Zedong
Kim Jong Il and father Kim Il-sung
Nicolae Ceaușescu

I would venture to throw in some latin american dictators who only claimed to be "religious" in order to pander to the masses but whose tyrannical actions were anything but.

[RandomGuy]

It depends on many factors. The references for atheist leaders have been rather lackluster, and downright scary... you know, your typical run-o-the-mill totalitarian tyrant.

Joseph Stalin
Mao Zedong
Kim Jong Il and father Kim Il-sung
Nicolae Ceaușescu

I would venture to throw in some latin american dictators who only claimed to be "religious" in order to pander to the masses but whose tyrannical actions were anything but.

(facepalm)

So your definition of "atheist" leader is anyone who does evil things, gotcha.

This is a rather worn path, don't you think?

You say X is an atheist, someone else say Y is a religious person, both X and Y are obviously horrible people, ad nauseum.

In the end, by taking a rather biased sample, you have only really proven the point of the OP albeit rather unwittingly.

[RandomGuy]

...

[boutons_deux]

It depends on many factors. The references for atheist leaders have been rather lackluster, and downright scary... you know, your typical run-o-the-mill totalitarian tyrant.

Joseph Stalin
Mao Zedong
Kim Jong Il and father Kim Il-sung
Nicolae Ceaușescu

I would venture to throw in some latin american dictators who only claimed to be "religious" in order to pander to the masses but whose tyrannical actions were anything but.

your wastrel boy dubya self-proclaimed to be a born-again Christian, and yet murdered 100Ks US military + Iraqis with his war-for-oil, so that proves Christians are evil leaders, and "Christian" USA slaughtered a few 100K Japanese, non-Christian non-combattants with two atomic bombs. Go Christians, y'all be doing God's work! :lol

[Blake]

I would venture to throw in some latin american dictators who only claimed to be "religious" in order to pander to the masses but whose tyrannical actions were anything but.

Rick Perry

[boutons_deux]

A huge flaw in Republicanism is that 10Ms of their base are dumbfuck, ignorant bubbas

Red Staters (and More) Already Talking Secession After Obama Victory

this year the electoral map looks suspiciously like slave states and free states lining up in opposition.

On the WhiteHouse.gov petition-writing tool, a large number of people have put forward petitions "peacefully demanding" that their states, including Texas and Louisiana, be removed from the Union. These two have garnered tens of thousands of signatures already, while others--which aren't all predictable, and include states like New York and Michigan-- have only a few thousand signees each.


http://www.alternet.org/red-staters-and-more-already-talking-secession-after-obama-victory (http://www.alternet.org/red-staters-and-more-already-talking-secession-after-obama-victory)

I'd REALLY like to see the Feds pull out all of US military, fire all Fed civil service in TX, and pull NASA out of TX! That'll teach the TX bubbas a lesson. :lol

Jefferson would be proud of the current INFORMED, EDUCATED populace. :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

A huge flaw in Republicanism is that 10Ms of their base are dumbfuck, ignorant bubbas

Red Staters (and More) Already Talking Secession After Obama Victory

this year the electoral map looks suspiciously like slave states and free states lining up in opposition.

On the WhiteHouse.gov petition-writing tool, a large number of people have put forward petitions "peacefully demanding" that their states, including Texas and Louisiana, be removed from the Union. These two have garnered tens of thousands of signatures already, while others--which aren't all predictable, and include states like New York and Michigan-- have only a few thousand signees each.


http://www.alternet.org/red-staters-and-more-already-talking-secession-after-obama-victory (http://www.alternet.org/red-staters-and-more-already-talking-secession-after-obama-victory)

I'd REALLY like to see the Feds pull out all of US military, fire all Fed civil service in TX, and pull NASA out of TX! That'll teach the TX bubbas a lesson. :lol

Jefferson would be proud of the current INFORMED, EDUCATED populace. :lol

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205439&p=6190116#post6190116

http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

[boutons_deux]

TB :lol

always so eloquent, incisive, delighting in the intelligent repartee with devastating counter thrusts of ...... facepalms! :lol

[Phenomanul]

(facepalm)

So your definition of "atheist" leader is anyone who does evil things, gotcha.

This is a rather worn path, don't you think?

You say X is an atheist, someone else say Y is a religious person, both X and Y are obviously horrible people, ad nauseum.

In the end, by taking a rather biased sample, you have only really proven the point of the OP albeit rather unwittingly.

I understand why you wouldn't want to claim those folks as being in your camp, nobody wants them (yes, they were horrible people). But don't deny the obvious; they were secularists to the core. Power-hungry Humanistic dictators. Naturalistic agnostics at best. How else would you classify the relentless pursuit of religious institutions in their respective countries during their oppressive regimes? The wanton destruction of temples/churches/shrines and the burning of any literature regarded as a sacred text? For example, ownership of a Bible is still cause for imprisonment in North Korea... How else would you classify that belligerence against religion, if not born out of an atheist philosophy?

NOW, I didn't say ALL atheists would be dictatorial. I simply implied a proneness...

BTW you made a faux assumption in suggesting I am a replublican, ergo I cannot 'unwittingly' prove the point in the OP.

[Wild Cobra]

RG points out Republican confirmation bias by posting a cartoon that confirms this belief.
He must love the ones that only slam the opposing side. He likes media bias I bet.

[Phenomanul]

your wastrel boy dubya self-proclaimed to be a born-again Christian, and yet murdered 100Ks US military + Iraqis with his war-for-oil, so that proves Christians are evil leaders, and "Christian" USA slaughtered a few 100K Japanese, non-Christian non-combattants with two atomic bombs. Go Christians, y'all be doing God's work! :lol

George W. Bush pandered to Christians throughout his tenure as President of the USA... but I am 99% sure he is not a Christian (based on actions thus far). Only GOD knows what's in his heart, and ultimately, that is what GWB will be judged against.

Rick Perry is on the same boat.

[boutons_deux]

" I didn't say ALL atheists would be dictatorial. I simply implied a proneness"

and nobody can say that "Christian" leaders are not warmongers, and prone to peace, love, and happiness. :lol

So in fact, you have nothing to say at all.

[RandomGuy]

I understand why you wouldn't want to claim those folks as being in your camp, nobody wants them (yes, they were horrible people). But don't deny the obvious; they were secularists to the core. Power-hungry Humanistic dictators. Naturalistic agnostics at best. How else would you classify the relentless pursuit of religious institutions in their respective countries during their oppressive regimes? The wanton destruction of temples/churches/shrines and the burning of any literature regarded as a sacred text? For example, ownership of a Bible is still cause for imprisonment in North Korea... How else would you classify that belligerence against religion, if not born out of an atheist philosophy?

NOW, I didn't say ALL atheists would be dictatorial. I simply implied a proneness...

BTW you made a faux assumption in suggesting I am a replublican, ergo I cannot 'unwittingly' prove the point in the OP.

So you do want to do the well worn kabuki, alright then.

Jung Myung Seok
Tony Alamo
Michael Travesser
Graham Capill
Warren Jeffs
William Kamm
Jacques Robidoux
Tomás de Torquemada
Adolf Hitler
William Stoughton
Moses

Etc. etc. etc.

History is replete with men who professed belief in God, and then went on to use that belief to justify and support all manner of horrible things.

This has been going on for thousands of years, and is by no means unique to Christianity. The fact that totalitarian governments view religion and religious institutions as threatening their power, to me, says volumes about how religion is, and has been used.

Once you think God is telling you to do something, you can do all sorts of nasty rationalizations.

[RandomGuy]

George W. Bush pandered to Christians throughout his tenure as President of the USA... but I am 99% sure he is not a Christian (based on actions thus far). Only GOD knows what's in his heart, and ultimately, that is what GWB will be judged against.

Rick Perry is on the same boat.

Once again, you get to define who is Christian and who is not a "real" Christian.

How convenient for you.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

[TeyshaBlue]

I can't keep track of my spamming. :cry

[TeyshaBlue]

Once again, you get to define who is Christian and who is not a "real" Christian.

How convenient for you.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

Ok..who is the arbiter of Christianity?

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm too busy, btw. Mebbe Jeebus can fill in.

[RandomGuy]

BTW you made a faux assumption in suggesting I am a [Republican], ergo I cannot 'unwittingly' prove the point in the OP.

Fair enough. Withdrawn. You do not prove the point in the OP, as you are not a Republican.

I would say, though, based on my dealings with you in the past, your ability to ignore data that does not support your worldview is quite in line with the type of confirmation bias that causes me to make such statements.

[RandomGuy]

Ok..who is the arbiter of Christianity?

I dunno. I am forced to generally take people at their word. I find the "oh yeah well, X is in YOUR camp and they are evil" to be something of a pointless exercise, although I will indulge in it if someone really wants to play that way.

[TeyshaBlue]

I dunno. I am forced to generally take people at their word. I find the "oh yeah well, X is in YOUR camp and they are evil" to be something of a pointless exercise, although I will indulge in it if someone really wants to play that way.

Well, if it's going to remain an undefined qualifier, it's probably best to just delete it from the lexicon of political traits pro or con.

[TeyshaBlue]

ergo...


"Dude's a ___________!"

"So What? Any idea what that means?"

"No."

End discussion.

[RandomGuy]

Well, if it's going to remain an undefined qualifier, it's probably best to just delete it from the lexicon of political traits pro or con.

hrm.

I said I generally take people at their word. If they say they are, they are, until proven that they are not, which would be difficult, unless you find an orthodox jew offering to Vishnu or something.

That is a reasonable definition to me.

[Blake]

George W. Bush pandered to Christians throughout his tenure as President of the USA... but I am 99% sure he is not a Christian (based on actions thus far). Only GOD knows what's in his heart, and ultimately, that is what GWB will be judged against.

Rick Perry is on the same boat.

Well, I guess we know that King Saul and King David were not Christians due to their place in time.......but I'm sure their war mongering was righteously justified since God knew their hearts.

Hell, David was a man after God's own heart according to God.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

George W. Bush pandered to Christians throughout his tenure as President of the USA... but I am 99% sure he is not a Christian (based on actions thus far). Only GOD knows what's in his heart, and ultimately, that is what GWB will be judged against.

Rick Perry is on the same boat.

rofl so then I guess you can say this country's evangelical population is pretty fuckin gullible and stupid for thinking Bush is a Christian :lol

Accidentally admitting how stupid evangelicals are :lol

[101A]

Ok..who is the arbiter of Christianity?

John 3:16

[Phenomanul]

So you do want to do the well worn kabuki, alright then.

Jung Myung Seok
Tony Alamo
Michael Travesser
Graham Capill
Warren Jeffs
William Kamm
Jacques Robidoux
Tomás de Torquemada
Adolf Hitler
William Stoughton
Moses

Etc. etc. etc.

History is replete with men who professed belief in God, and then went on to use that belief to justify and support all manner of horrible things.

This has been going on for thousands of years, and is by no means unique to Christianity. The fact that totalitarian governments view religion and religious institutions as threatening their power, to me, says volumes about how religion is, and has been used.

Once you think God is telling you to do something, you can do all sorts of nasty rationalizations.


Once again, you get to define who is Christian and who is not a "real" Christian.

How convenient for you.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

Oh that's rich... a mocking non-believer like yourself TELLING me that the tenets of my faith cannot be used to gauge it's very adherents... :lol :lol

The bible explicitly describes what a Christian should be. And not to bust your bubble again (we've had that dance before), but Hitler was most definitely not a Christian (and he dabbled with occultistism to boot). The man was evil incarnate. No amount of lies or deceit can fully masquerade or suppress the weight of his evil deeds.

A "real" Christian according to the bible is known by their fruit... The passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew says it as plain as night and day:

"13) Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14) But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15) Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16) By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17) Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18) A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20) Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21) Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22) Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? 23) Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!''' Matthew 7:13-23

So what are the fruits by which you will 'know' who is a Christian?

"22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23) gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23

Joseph Stalin persecuted the Church and all other religious institutions in order to "purge" the Soviet Union of religion. More than 40 million people lost their lives under his oppression. DEFINITELY not a DEIST.

etc...
etc...
etc...

[Phenomanul]

rofl so then I guess you can say this country's evangelical population is pretty fuckin gullible and stupid for thinking Bush is a Christian :lol

Accidentally admitting how stupid evangelicals are :lol

Accidental what? Go crawl back under a bridge... Most Christians misinterpret and misapply the "Judge not lest ye be judged" concept far too much. They wouldn't outright claim to state who "is" or "isn't" a Christian based on fear that they're casting judgement on someone else. Clearly, the Bible issues a guidelines on what it means to represent Christ and what that would entail.

[Phenomanul]

Peace out...

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Accidental what? Go crawl back under a bridge... Most Christians misinterpret and misapply the "Judge not lest ye be judged" concept far too much. They wouldn't outright claim to state who "is" or "isn't" a Christian based on fear that they're casting judgement on someone else. Clearly, the Bible issues a guidelines on what it means to represent Christ and what that would entail.
So you're then admitting most evangelical christians in this country are fuckin stupid amirite?

[ploto]

If we are judging solely on fruits, then no one is a Christian. Even Jesus said that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Paul likewise admitted that he did not what he wanted to do but instead what he hated.

[LnGrrrR]

John 3:16

Stone Cold Steve Austin?

[Phenomanul]

If we are judging solely on fruits, then no one is a Christian. Even Jesus said that the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Paul likewise admitted that he did not what he wanted to do but instead what he hated.

Obviously no one is perfect...

It's a combination of one's fruits, the genuineness of one's repentance of the heart when he/she stumbles, and one's faith which gets measured whenever the "type" of tree (good or bad) that we represent is assessed...

[Phenomanul]

So you're then admitting most evangelical christians in this country are fuckin stupid amirite?

Nope, just you.... since you're the one making that irrelevant assumption...

[clambake]

lol ones deliberate acts can be written off as stumbles.

your god knows the difference.

[clambake]

genuineness lol

[RandomGuy]

Oh that's rich... a mocking non-believer like yourself TELLING me that the tenets of my faith cannot be used to gauge it's very adherents... :lol :lol

The bible explicitly describes what a Christian should be. And not to bust your bubble again (we've had that dance before), but Hitler was most definitely not a Christian (and he dabbled with occultistism to boot). The man was evil incarnate. No amount of lies or deceit can fully masquerade or suppress the weight of his evil deeds.

A "real" Christian according to the bible is known by their fruit... The passage from the Gospel of St. Matthew says it as plain as night and day:

"13) Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14) But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15) Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16) By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17) Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18) A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20) Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. 21) Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22) Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? 23) Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!''' Matthew 7:13-23

So what are the fruits by which you will 'know' who is a Christian?

"22) But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23) gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law." Galatians 5:22-23

Joseph Stalin persecuted the Church and all other religious institutions in order to "purge" the Soviet Union of religion. More than 40 million people lost their lives under his oppression. DEFINITELY not a DEIST.

etc...
etc...
etc...

Looks like I touched a nerve.

The bible is far from consistent about what it says are "christian" values, so you will have to pardon me for some small amount of confusion.

How does one reconcile "kindness and gentleness" with:


[The Lord speaking] "The one who has stolen what was set apart for destruction will himself be burned with fire, along with everything he has, for he has broken the covenant of the LORD and has done a horrible thing in Israel." (Joshua 7:15 NLT)


At the LORD's command, a man of God from Judah went to Bethel, and he arrived there just as Jeroboam was approaching the altar to offer a sacrifice. Then at the LORD's command, he shouted, "O altar, altar! This is what the LORD says: A child named Josiah will be born into the dynasty of David. On you he will sacrifice the priests from the pagan shrines who come here to burn incense, and human bones will be burned on you." (1 Kings 13:1-2 NLT)




He [Josiah] executed the priests of the pagan shrines on their own altars, and he burned human bones on the altars to desecrate them. Finally, he returned to Jerusalem. King Josiah then issued this order to all the people: "You must celebrate the Passover to the LORD your God, as it is written in the Book of the Covenant." There had not been a Passover celebration like that since the time when the judges ruled in Israel, throughout all the years of the kings of Israel and Judah. This Passover was celebrated to the LORD in Jerusalem during the eighteenth year of King Josiah's reign. Josiah also exterminated the mediums and psychics, the household gods, and every other kind of idol worship, both in Jerusalem and throughout the land of Judah. He did this in obedience to all the laws written in the scroll that Hilkiah the priest had found in the LORD's Temple. Never before had there been a king like Josiah, who turned to the LORD with all his heart and soul and strength, obeying all the laws of Moses. And there has never been a king like him since. (2 Kings 23:20-25 NLT)


"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)


Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)


A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)


Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)


If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)


But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)



2) But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)


From there Elisha went up to Bethel. While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings 2:23-24 NAB)



Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

It goes on.


How do you reconcile that (incomplete) list with loving kindness?

Is burning in hell for all eternity (infinite punishment) for a finite sin of not believing in God consistent with this loving-ness?

Is stoning people for their sins consistent?

If you were a priest in the Bronze age, what better way to keep people in line than the threat of eternal punishment in the afterlife?

[RandomGuy]

Accidental what? Go crawl back under a bridge... Most Christians misinterpret and misapply the "Judge not lest ye be judged" concept far too much. They wouldn't outright claim to state who "is" or "isn't" a Christian based on fear that they're casting judgement on someone else. Clearly, the Bible issues a guidelines on what it means to represent Christ and what that would entail.

Don't try to shed the OT, either. That would piss Jesus off.


1) “For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)


"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)



"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB)


"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." (2 Peter 20-21 NAB)

Representing Jesus means hewing to the laws of Moses, that outlines the death penalty for a host of things, among which are that non-believers are to be put to the sword.

[RandomGuy]

Hitler was most definitely not a Christian

a) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.

b) As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. (On his way to school young Adolf daily observed a stone arch which was carved with the monastery’s coat of arms bearing a swastika.)

c) Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church.

d) As a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.

f) Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party

Hitler and the Pope
g) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.

Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.” (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

h) Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/buckle.jpg

"God is with us" worn by German soldiers and SS.

Seems pretty clear to me that they thought they were doing the Lord's work.

You say they weren't, they say they were.

You don't get to disown them simply because you find them inconvenient for your worldview, sorry.

[TeyshaBlue]

genuineness lol

Guinnesses ftw

[clambake]

Guinnesses ftw

i was using phenoms spelling. didn't want to disrespect.

[clambake]

its all good for the germans.

"whats that, god, it was wrong? sorry, just stumbled. lov ya"

[TeyshaBlue]

i was using phenoms spelling. didn't want to disrespect.

I just want a Guiness. Yes, at 10 a.m,. lol

http://blog.timesunion.com/tablehopping/files/2007/09/guinnessbeer.jpg

[clambake]

i thought he was talking about beer.

[TeyshaBlue]

i thought he was talking about beer.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/wee_01.jpg

[RandomGuy]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/wee_01.jpg

May your Thanksgiving dinner be less awkward than Patraeus'.

[RandomGuy]

http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/59856d5357ae85f98186d8cfb568076bba.png

[TeyshaBlue]

May your Thanksgiving dinner be less awkward than Patraeus'.

:lol

[RandomGuy]

Obviously no one is perfect...


Indeed.

Good thing we had people like Tomas de Torqemada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada) to keep the heretics from running rampant.

I will spare y'all from the rather nasty descriptions of how he convinced people to believe in Jesus.

Again, a man very firmly self-identified as a Christian.

How do I tell the difference between "real" and "not real" again?

What is the metric? To me, it seems to be "someone who makes me feel good about being a Christian", however one might rationalize it with a selective reading of bible passages.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think liberals are any (or certainly not much) better at this. How many government programs have to go exponentially over-budget and NOT accomplish what they were supposed to accomplish before a liberal will admit that they might be a mistake?

For instance, it is pretty apparent that, taken in total, the government programs designed to help people in poverty, are creating a permanent cycle of poverty; including increased illegitimate births, increased crime and, despite our best ($$$$$) efforts, sinking education results.

Liberals don't even pause to consider that that MIGHT be true.

Crime is dropping.


US violent crime rate down for fifth straight year

Although crime historically spikes during hard economic times, the US is currently bucking that trend. Both the national violent crime rate and murder rate were down in 2011, reports the FBI.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0612/US-violent-crime-rate-down-for-fifth-straight-year

What you are doing right here is exactly what he is talking about btw.

You want your idea to be true so you insert it for the truth when objective reality says crime is not decreasing. And the whole 'legitimate' birth thing is adorable. Single mothers are whores right? Illegitimate childbearing WHORES!!!

[RandomGuy]

Crime is dropping.



http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0612/US-violent-crime-rate-down-for-fifth-straight-year

What you are doing right here is exactly what he is talking about btw.

You want your idea to be true so you insert it for the truth when objective reality says crime is not decreasing. And the whole 'legitimate' birth thing is adorable. Single mothers are whores right? Illegitimate childbearing WHORES!!!

If it was "pretty apparent" it would be a lot easier to prove, IMO.

One could, for example, use that data to make the case that providing single mothers with social services and safety nets is responsible for that, by mitigating the worst effects of poverty.

There is also an argument to be made about the existence of "sinking education results".

[RandomGuy]

For instance, it is pretty apparent that, taken in total, the government programs designed to help people in poverty, are ... [increasing] illegitimate births

Prove that "illegitimate births" are going up.

Then, give me a solution, and have that solution sketched out in terms of costs and benefits.

I know teen pregnancies are down overall. This strongly suggests to me that this one part, at least, is factually incorrect.

You want me to be in your political party, I'm on board, so let's get to at least identifying real problems, because I would hate to spend time and effort on non-real problems.

[DarrinS]

Prove that "illegitimate births" are going up.

Then, give me a solution, and have that solution sketched out in terms of costs and benefits.

I know teen pregnancies are down overall. This strongly suggests to me that this one part, at least, is factually incorrect.

You want me to be in your political party, I'm on board, so let's get to at least identifying real problems, because I would hate to spend time and effort on non-real problems.

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/sites/default/files/75_fig1.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:facepalm

Darrin read the axis and legend of that graph and think about it.

I'll give a hint: the vertical axis says 'percentage.'

That's a grap of 'darkie is taking over the world.'

[101A]

Crime is dropping.



http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0612/US-violent-crime-rate-down-for-fifth-straight-year

What you are doing right here is exactly what he is talking about btw.

You want your idea to be true so you insert it for the truth when objective reality says crime is not decreasing. And the whole 'legitimate' birth thing is adorable. Single mothers are whores right? Illegitimate childbearing WHORES!!!

Damn.

A true liberal at work.

My point was to illustrate a liberal version of group think; and you go and find one (at least to you) fact from my quick rant to discredit the entire thing. Certainly wouldn't want to consider the actual premise of my post; that liberals wouldn't even consider looking at certain government programs as being bad for the very people they were designed to help. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Also, you posted about "violent crime". My quote was "crime". (I didn't include the number of chronically poor currently locked in prison as unproductive wards of the state; but I could have)

Illegitimate children, study upon study have shown, are at a disadvantage for success later in life. I sis not make a moral judgement at all, but a societal one. Society, and children themselves, would do better to have less illegitimacy.

Again, thank you for helping to illustrate my point.

and;

GFY for making assumptions about my views, and interjecting your knee-jerk self into a reasonable discussion RG and I were having.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/sites/default/files/75_fig1.jpg

Thank you!

Solid data.

Now we have identified a fact.

I would even go so far as to say it is a problem, as having two parents seems to be beneficial to children, in general.

Now for the trillion dollar question.

What do we do about it?

[RandomGuy]

:facepalm

Darrin read the axis and legend of that graph and think about it.

I'll give a hint: the vertical axis says 'percentage.'

That's a grap of 'darkie is taking over the world.'

Percentage is, in this case, more important than raw numbers, as it is more useful to making generalizations about the population of children as a whole. IMO.

[RandomGuy]

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
First Collector: Many can't go there.
Second Collector: And some would rather die.

How do we avoid Dickensian squalor?

[101A]

Prove that "illegitimate births" are going up.

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/928/birthsunmarried.png


Then, give me a solution, and have that solution sketched out in terms of costs and benefits.

I don't have a solution. I never suggested I had a solution. I simply stated that there might be causality between the programs championed by liberals exacerbating the very problems they were "designed" to solve. I have some thoughts, revolving around the concept of "you get what you pay for" - but was hoping for an active discussion; I don't want to poison the well with any easily countered, poorly thought out suggestions. No better way to chase off potential allies.


I know teen pregnancies are down overall. This strongly suggests to me that this one part, at least, is factually incorrect.

Nope; and that's just one chart; there is much more. The African American, and Hispanic rates are shocking.


You want me to be in your political party, I'm on board, so let's get to at least identifying real problems, because I would hate to spend time and effort on non-real problems.

Fantastic; we are in complete agreement; call me on bullshit; I can take it. :toast

[101A]

:facepalm

Darrin read the axis and legend of that graph and think about it.

I'll give a hint: the vertical axis says 'percentage.'

That's a grap of 'darkie is taking over the world.'

Try again.

[101A]

How do we avoid Dickensian squalor?

Everybody gets visited by three ghosts?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Damn.

A true liberal at work.

My point was to illustrate a liberal version of group think; and you go and find one (at least to you) fact from my quick rant to discredit the entire thing. Certainly wouldn't want to consider the actual premise of my post; that liberals wouldn't even consider looking at certain government programs as being bad for the very people they were designed to help. Thanks for helping me make my point.

Also, you posted about "violent crime". My quote was "crime". (I didn't include the number of chronically poor currently locked in prison as unproductive wards of the state; but I could have)

Illegitimate children, study upon study have shown, are at a disadvantage for success later in life. I sis not make a moral judgement at all, but a societal one. Society, and children themselves, would do better to have less illegitimacy.

Again, thank you for helping to illustrate my point.

and;

GFY for making assumptions about my views, and interjecting your knee-jerk self into a reasonable discussion RG and I were having.

:cry

Channeling boutons?

You said that welfare increased crime. Well the correlation is not there. Really though the narrative in law enforcement circles is about how crime is going down overall and that goes back to his comments about you having on your information blocking suit.

And children raised by one person rather than two are less well off? Who woulda thunk it? I am talking about the use of the word 'legitimate.' It has it's own inherent semantics and that you are oblivious to them just further goes to illustrate the point about your bubble, bubble boy.

And illustrate my point? What point? That you think I am a liberal? Don't mistake my disdain for the GOP and evangelical types for liberalism. I would go through my position stances to once again demonstrate how I am not a 'liberal' but I also suspect you cannot deviate from your dual paradigm anyway. Calling children illegitimate is wrong no matter how you turn it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Percentage is, in this case, more important than raw numbers, as it is more useful to making generalizations about the population of children as a whole. IMO.

Yeah, i was wrong. I was thinking of a percentage of the single whole population and not a percentage of each respective individual population.

[101A]

:cry

Channeling boutons?

You said that welfare increased crime. Well the correlation is not there. Really though the narrative in law enforcement circles is about how crime is going down overall and that goes back to his comments about you having on your information blocking suit.

And children raised by one person rather than two are less well off? Who woulda thunk it? I am talking about the use of the word 'legitimate.' It has it's own inherent semantics and that you are oblivious to them just further goes to illustrate the point about your bubble, bubble boy.

And illustrate my point? What point? That you think I am a liberal? Don't mistake my disdain for the GOP and evangelical types for liberalism. I would go through my position stances to once again demonstrate how I am not a 'liberal' but I also suspect you cannot deviate from your dual paradigm anyway. Calling children illegitimate is wrong no matter how you turn it.

Legitimate vs Illegitimate are the words, I'm sorry if if you don't like them - that they offend you. I've never thought of them in a literal sense, tbh.

And are you mistaking me for a bible-thumper as I am mistaking you for a liberal?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Legitimate vs Illegitimate are the words, I'm sorry if if you don't like them - that they offend you. I've never thought of them in a literal sense, tbh.

And are you mistaking me for a bible-thumper as I am mistaking you for a liberal?

Where does the authority to legitimize a childbirth come from? You do know what legitimate means right? I'll help:



le·git·i·mate (l-jt-mt)
adj.
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.

[RandomGuy]

Everybody gets visited by three ghosts?

One would hope. :D

[dbestpro]

Nice to see everyone getting along. Now if congress can only play so nice.

[RandomGuy]

Legitimate vs Illegitimate are the words, I'm sorry if if you don't like them - that they offend you. I've never thought of them in a literal sense, tbh.

And are you mistaking me for a bible-thumper as I am mistaking you for a liberal?

Fuzzy does have a point there though.

The word is a bit archaic, something like "eskimo" for Innuit peoples and "oriental" for Asians.

We could probably find a better word that doesn't have the historic baggage, at the risk of being politically correct. FWIW.

Not that I think it hugely important. It is far less important than finding solutions, to me.

[RandomGuy]

http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/928/birthsunmarried.png

I don't have a solution. I never suggested I had a solution. I simply stated that there might be causality between the programs championed by liberals exacerbating the very problems they were "designed" to solve. I have some thoughts, revolving around the concept of "you get what you pay for" - but was hoping for an active discussion; I don't want to poison the well with any easily countered, poorly thought out suggestions. No better way to chase off potential allies.

Nope; and that's just one chart; there is much more. The African American, and Hispanic rates are shocking.

Fantastic; we are in complete agreement; call me on bullshit; I can take it. :toast

All I ask is that we try to base things on some rational evidence. Darrin beat you to it. He does that every once in a while, just fuck with my opinion of him, no doubt.

My thing:

Kids with no fathers (or mothers occasionally) around are inevitable. Have always existed, exist now, obviously, and will always exist.

We can discourage them with a total lack of assistance, which will reduce the numbers as a very likely result, at the cost of having kids living in squalor that will shock the conscience, and likely force us to deal with violent predators and the costs that entails.

We can help them. This will increase the numbers, and mitigate the worst effects of poverty.
--We can wave our hands and hope that charity will pick up the slack, which I am certain will not happen to a degree sufficient to the problem.
--We can have government programs of some sort.

Generally, I am not a fan of punishing children for the sins and/or failings of their parents. That I find both short-sighted and immoral. Denying someone help when they need it clearly falls in this category, IMO.

[clambake]

gotta get them through the birth......then they can fucking die.

[TeyshaBlue]

Where does the authority to legitimize a childbirth come from? You do know what legitimate means right? I'll help:



le·git·i·mate (l-jt-mt)
adj.
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.

In a social (western) context seems like #2 would apply ie: defined as within wedlock absent rape.

[ChumpDumper]

So crime is down and out of wedlock births are leveling out.

Does government get credit for that?

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't think out of wedlock births were leveling out in 95 (same pattern), and I don't think they are leveling out now.

[RandomGuy]

Joseph Stalin persecuted the Church and all other religious institutions in order to "purge" the Soviet Union of religion. More than 40 million people lost their lives under his oppression. DEFINITELY not a DEIST.

You don't know what he believed on his deathbed.

XrLzYw6ULYw

For all you know, he could be in heaven waiting for you.


Awkward...

(sorry, back off topic. video is mildly amusing)

[TeyshaBlue]

And with the various municipalities jacked up reporting of crime stats (See Dallas for example...we don't even report thefts/shoplifting <$50), I have even less faith in an aggregate crime figure than I do in Elvis's continued existance on Neptune.

[DarrinS]

Thank you!

Solid data.

Now we have identified a fact.

I would even go so far as to say it is a problem, as having two parents seems to be beneficial to children, in general.

Now for the trillion dollar question.

What do we do about it?


Beats me. There's no longer any (or as much) social stigma having kids out-of-wedlock.

[ChumpDumper]

So I guess we're just free to believe whatever we want.

Kind of like religion tbh.

[RandomGuy]

I don't think out of wedlock births were leveling out in 95 (same pattern), and I don't think they are leveling out now.

That isn't what the data shows. It is leveling off.

Free condoms for everyone. :clap

[RandomGuy]

gotta get them through the birth......then they can fucking die.

Pretty much. The next abortion protest I see, I am going to solicit donations for a children's charity that benefits abused children. See if they put their money where their mouth is.

[RandomGuy]

Beats me. There's no longer any (or as much) social stigma having kids out-of-wedlock.

So you think that having such a stigma would prevent such things.

How do we get this stigma back?

What are the costs to that stigma, and getting the stigma back?

[101A]

Where does the authority to legitimize a childbirth come from? You do know what legitimate means right? I'll help:



le·git·i·mate (l-jt-mt)
adj.
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.

I get it, but honestly - it had never occurred to me....

[RandomGuy]

And with the various municipalities jacked up reporting of crime stats (See Dallas for example...we don't even report thefts/shoplifting <$50), I have even less faith in an aggregate crime figure than I do in Elvis's continued existance on Neptune.

Faith is what people have when they don't have good reasons to believe something.

Too much money involved for me to put stock in your "faith" that things are worse than they appear, no offense.

Either your faith can be quantified and measured, or it can't.

I don't want my public policy made on faith that Bigfoot will ride to the rescue either.

[DarrinS]

If you say those numbers make a good case for free abortions, then you are making the same argument as the founder of Planned Parenthood (nothing to be proud of, tbh).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics

[ChumpDumper]

lol Darrin trying to reverse the racist whip

A little late.

[101A]

All I ask is that we try to base things on some rational evidence. Darrin beat you to it. He does that every once in a while, just fuck with my opinion of him, no doubt.

My thing:

Kids with no fathers (or mothers occasionally) around are inevitable. Have always existed, exist now, obviously, and will always exist.

We can discourage them with a total lack of assistance, which will reduce the numbers as a very likely result, at the cost of having kids living in squalor that will shock the conscience, and likely force us to deal with violent predators and the costs that entails.

We can help them. This will increase the numbers, and mitigate the worst effects of poverty.
--We can wave our hands and hope that charity will pick up the slack, which I am certain will not happen to a degree sufficient to the problem.
--We can have government programs of some sort.

Generally, I am not a fan of punishing children for the sins and/or failings of their parents. That I find both short-sighted and immoral. Denying someone help when they need it clearly falls in this category, IMO.


Well, I'd start with eliminating the marriage penalty - probably not gonna make much of a dent (at all), but is simple to do; and would make the tax code reflect a societal value (again, not religious; two parents are good for society - and the kid).

Now, I just realized my own child is not home, and the bus arrived 30 minutes ago; later.

[RandomGuy]

I get it, but honestly - it had never occurred to me....

I know the feeling. I got harangued by an Asian classmate once for using the word "oriental". It had zero emotional tone for me, and was simply sort of a catchall synonym for "Asian", but she took it as some huge personal affront without giving me the benefit of the doubt for not wanting to insult her.

I asked her what she would say about me, and she said "caucasian", and I pointed out my Germanic ancestors would have a problem with that particular term. Don't think she got it.

That wasn't the last overly aggressive Asian female I have had to deal with on that topic. Meh.. off topic again.

SQUIRREL!!!

[RandomGuy]

If you say those numbers make a good case for free abortions, then you are making the same argument as the founder of Planned Parenthood (nothing to be proud of, tbh).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger#Eugenics

v5vzCmURh7o

You go with your bad self having that argument with yourself.

[Blake]

For all you know, he could be in heaven waiting for you.


Along with countless child molesters, murderers and gay porn stars.

[DarrinS]

Where does the authority to legitimize a childbirth come from? You do know what legitimate means right? I'll help:



le·git·i·mate (l-jt-mt)
adj.
1. Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.
2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.
4. Authentic; genuine: a legitimate complaint.\



FuzzyLump prefers bastard or whoreson.

"Legitimacy" as it relates to child birth comes from a wierd time in human history when it was normal for children to be born of married parents.

[Drachen]

Everybody gets visited by three ghosts?

QUIT BRINGING RELIGION INTO THE PARTY!



:)

[RandomGuy]

Beats me. There's no longer any (or as much) social stigma having kids out-of-wedlock.

94f2h-5TvbM

Not sure I want the stigma back, tbh.

[Drachen]

Fuzzy does have a point there though.

The word is a bit archaic, something like "eskimo" for Innuit peoples and "oriental" for Asians.

We could probably find a better word that doesn't have the historic baggage, at the risk of being politically correct. FWIW.

Not that I think it hugely important. It is far less important than finding solutions, to me.
This

[DarrinS]

94f2h-5TvbM

Not sure I want the stigma back, tbh.



Yeah, because it was just like this. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

Yeah, because it was just like this. :rolleyes

You didn't really watch that whole thing, I would guess.

Since you didn't answer how your "stigma" solution would work or what it would take to make it happen, or even if it was a good thing, I kinda have to fill in the blanks.

Do you have anything to fill in the blanks?

Is this "stigma" a good thing to have?

You can't bitch about someone filling in your theory for you if you are too lazy to do it yourself.

[Phenomanul]

Looks like I touched a nerve.

The bible is far from consistent about what it says are "christian" values, so you will have to pardon me for some small amount of confusion.

How does one reconcile "kindness and gentleness" with:


It goes on.


How do you reconcile that (incomplete) list with loving kindness?

Is burning in hell for all eternity (infinite punishment) for a finite sin of not believing in God consistent with this loving-ness?

Is stoning people for their sins consistent?

If you were a priest in the Bronze age, what better way to keep people in line than the threat of eternal punishment in the afterlife?

It's pretty clear to me from the passage I cited (did you even read it?)... your confusion stems from the fact that you so willingly want to render the whole concept null by discrediting what you simply don't and can't understand, thereby justifying your own disbelief. That's why you are unable to reconcile what you read with your own sense of judgement (and since you've hardened your heart you are therefore blind to an understanding of scripture itself).

Anyways, the passages you cited don't include the full context of how GOD assessed the situation, and despite the extreme nature of His justice those passages portray His ultimate grace and mercy. For that matter, we cannot weigh the merit of GOD's judgements because we ourselves are imperfect and injust. If you had a garden, and saw that you needed to pluck out a few weeds knowing that if you didn't pluck them out that they would eventually overrun your garden, wouldn't you do it? The better question is, why wouldn't you? GOD 'cut' perverse generations from among Israel's neighboring nations because they were idolatrous, evil, people - but in doing so He prevented the proliferation of countless of other souls which would have sucumbed to the same evil practices. GOD exists outside of time and acted in perfect harmony with His Justice and Holiness.

Now, under the grace provided by the New Covenant (paid for by Christ's blood) the full delivery of GOD's justice will be delayed until Judgement Day.

Which brings me to your next post....

[Phenomanul]

Don't try to shed the OT, either. That would piss Jesus off.


Representing Jesus means hewing to the laws of Moses, that outlines the death penalty for a host of things, among which are that non-believers are to be put to the sword.

Anyone who doesn't accept the offer of grace provided by the New Covenant through Christ's blood will be subjected to judgement according to GOD's law... This is why the Law won't pass away "until all things have taken place".

Believers on the other hand are made Righteous before GOD in Christ's Righteousness.

[TeyshaBlue]

That isn't what the data shows. It is leveling off.

Free condoms for everyone. :clap

Was it leveling off in 95?

[clambake]

yeah rg, you've hardened your heart! lol

[Phenomanul]

a) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.

b) As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. (On his way to school young Adolf daily observed a stone arch which was carved with the monastery’s coat of arms bearing a swastika.)

c) Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church.

d) As a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.

f) Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party

Hitler and the Pope
g) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.

Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.” (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

h) Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/buckle.jpg

"God is with us" worn by German soldiers and SS.

Seems pretty clear to me that they thought they were doing the Lord's work.

You say they weren't, they say they were.

You don't get to disown them simply because you find them inconvenient for your worldview, sorry.

Again, "Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.". I don't care if Hitler professed to be the Pope himself, he was nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing, a false prophet, a liar.

"13) Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14) But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. 15) Watch out for false prophets (like Adolf Hitler). They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16) By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17) Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18) A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. (like Adolf Hitler) 19) Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (like Adolf Hitler) 20) Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them. (like Adolf Hitler) 21) Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22) Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name (like Adolf Hitler), and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? 23) Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!''' Matthew 7:13-23

[Blake]

Why did God wait so long to make a new covenant?

Instead, he wiped out humanity with a flood.

You're lying when you say he is a god of grace.

[Blake]

Again, "Not everyone who calls me Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.". I don't care if Hitler professed to be the Pope himself, he was nothing but a wolf in sheep's clothing, a false prophet, a liar.

What leaders are proven Christians?

List please.

[TeyshaBlue]

Faith is what people have when they don't have good reasons to believe something.

Too much money involved for me to put stock in your "faith" that things are worse than they appear, no offense.

Either your faith can be quantified and measured, or it can't.

I don't want my public policy made on faith that Bigfoot will ride to the rescue either.

It's not faith, RG. It's data.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/10/time_for_chief_brown_to_admit.php

[Phenomanul]

Why did God wait so long to make a new covenant?

Instead, he wiped out humanity with a flood.

You're lying when you say he is a god of grace.

Oh yeah GOD was soooooo unfair... He destroyed Earth after Noah, his father, and grandfather (Methuselah) had preached about the impending destruction for over 100 years... I mean geesh... how long did it take Noah and his sons to build the ark? Over a hundred years... the people that mocked him probably sounded much like yourself calling GOD a liar and all...

[ChumpDumper]

Oh yeah GOD was soooooo unfair... He destroyed Earth after Noah, his father, and grandfather (Methuselah) had preached about the impending destruction for over 100 years... I mean geesh... how long did it take Noah and his sons to build the ark? Over a hundred years... the people that mocked him probably sounded much like yourself calling GOD a liar and all...Why did god feel the need to just destroy it all?

Did he need a mulligan?

[clambake]

when god makes a mistake, he cleans the entire room.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy does have a point there though.

The word is a bit archaic, something like "eskimo" for Innuit peoples and "oriental" for Asians.

We could probably find a better word that doesn't have the historic baggage, at the risk of being politically correct. FWIW.

Not that I think it hugely important. It is far less important than finding solutions, to me.

I don't disagree with the finding solutions part but discounting rhetoric and what it implies in a policy-making environment is folly.

Fact is that people don't much sympathize or care about the plight of others and discount their situations out of hand. That is as much of a source of a/the 'problem' as there is. This is not directed at 101 but most the time when you see that it is because they are trying to keep the 'problem' at arms length and refer to it in terms that are dismissive. Combine that with groupthink and you have what you have. The Deep South is absolutely twisted with that phenomenon.

I personally do not give a shit if people are offended. I think that should be obvious. What I do give a shit about is people seeing things as they are and not as they try and characterize such as to ignore.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh yeah GOD was soooooo unfair... He destroyed Earth after Noah, his father, and grandfather (Methuselah) had preached about the impending destruction for over 100 years... I mean geesh... how long did it take Noah and his sons to build the ark? Over a hundred years... the people that mocked him probably sounded much like yourself calling GOD a liar and all...

:lol please don't tell me you think the Earth is 5000 years old.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not faith, RG. It's data.

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/10/time_for_chief_brown_to_admit.php

It's not data. It's an anecdote.

Do you really think they are 'massaging' murder and rape crime?

[Phenomanul]

Why did god feel the need to just destroy it all?

Did he need a mulligan?

To make petroleum oil for the 20th century. Duh! /sarcasm.

Perhaps to wipe the evil seed of the Nephalim from earth.


Look, I have to call it a night... people to see, things to do, food to eat... peace out!

[ChumpDumper]

To make petroleum oil for the 20th century. Duh! /sarcasm.

Perhaps to wipe the evil seed of the Nephalim from earth.


Look, I have to call it a night... people to see, things to do, food to eat... peace out!Convenient.

Is that really the only way to get rid of seeds?

I wonder how many innocent babies god killed in the deluge. Anything about that in the bible?

[TeyshaBlue]

It's not data. It's an anecdote.

Do you really think they are 'massaging' murder and rape crime?

See teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of fine wine metaphor.

[Blake]

Oh yeah GOD was soooooo unfair... He destroyed Earth after Noah, his father, and grandfather (Methuselah) had preached about the impending destruction for over 100 years...

Yeah, pretty unfair considering we don't have to do anything but believe nowadays.

Why didn't God form a new covenant as soon as Adam bit the fruit?


I mean geesh... how long did it take Noah and his sons to build the ark? Over a hundred years... the people that mocked him probably sounded much like yourself calling GOD a liar and all...

I'm actually mocking you and calling you a liar.

Geesh!

[TeyshaBlue]

See teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of fine wine metaphor.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2010/01/debunking-dallas-crime-stats.html

[clambake]

I wonder how many innocent babies god killed in the deluge. Anything about that in the bible?

or yet to be born babies. sounds like a gods abortion.

well, he's here to teach!

[Blake]

To make petroleum oil for the 20th century. Duh! /sarcasm.

Perhaps to wipe the evil seed of the Nephalim from earth.


Look, I have to call it a night... people to see, things to do, food to eat... peace out!

Noah was obviously a sinner too.

Why wouldn't God destroy everyone + Noah (in a more humane manner than drowning) and go back to making a new Adam in a new Eden?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

See teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of fine wine metaphor.

That is because one bad ingredient changes the flavor of the food detrimentally. I get that. Cooked asparagus and brussel sprouts stink like shit and if their juice intermingles with your other accoutrements it just fucks everything up. Don't tell me to just eat around it. YOU CANNOT!!!

Does a gratuitous shoplifting enforcement policy ruin the national crime statistics though?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Noah was obviously a sinner too.

Why wouldn't God destroy everyone + Noah (in a more humane manner than drowning) and go back to making a new Adam in a new Eden?

Look up Nephalim if you are not familiar with what they are and then you know what you are dealing with. He is gone but I wonder if he really thinks the flood was to wipe out the spawn of man and angel.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/09/new_evidence_em.php

Found that TB. Does sound like you have a very valid point. Begs the question of where is the political will to push such action coming from? Municipal politics doesn't get talked much around here.

[ploto]

It's a combination of one's fruits, the genuineness of one's repentance of the heart when he/she stumbles, and one's faith which gets measured whenever the "type" of tree (good or bad) that we represent is assessed...

And you are qualified to make this assessment?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you are qualified to make this assessment?

I am guessing it's just regurgitation.

[TeyshaBlue]

http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/09/new_evidence_em.php

Found that TB. Does sound like you have a very valid point. Begs the question of where is the political will to push such action coming from? Municipal politics doesn't get talked much around here.

What's that old saying? All politics are local?

Dallas is retarded in many ways. Unfortunately, they are not the only burg that claims that trait. Makes me want to look harder at aggregated stats when I see a local story like Dallas. They're the teaspoon of sewage.

[TeyshaBlue]

What's that old saying? All politics are local?


Whups. Looked that up. Tip O'Neill. The context of the original statement makes that a non sequitur in the above usage. Doh!

[Blake]

Look up Nephalim if you are not familiar with what they are and then you know what you are dealing with. He is gone but I wonder if he really thinks the flood was to wipe out the spawn of man and angel.

If he really believes it, then I wonder what his explanation is for why they show up later.

[ChumpDumper]

If he really believes it, then I wonder what his explanation is for why they show up later.Well, they were really tall.

It's also hard to believe no one else in the world had a damn boat.

Or that there just isn't that much water around to flood the whole earth. Did god make more? Or did he melt the ice caps? Did he flood everything up to 29,000 feet? If so, did he pull some global warming to keep everything from freezing up there?

So many questions....

[Blake]

So many questions....

I'm extremely certain he would answer those questions if he didn't have to call it a night... see people, do things, eat food..

[Winehole23]

Yeah, because it was just like this. :rolleyesRG supplied his own strawman, no doubt to needle you, but there were similarities. legally speaking, women were chattels in Texas until the early 1970's. could not make a contract, buy a house or a car without husband or father countersigning. there was also less social stigma attached to beating wives and children like chattel -- paternalism has its problems, even here in the good old USA.

[RandomGuy]

Anyways, the passages you cited don't include the full context

In what possible context could the slaughtering of every single man, woman, and male child in a city ever be considered a moral act?

[RandomGuy]

If you had a garden, and saw that you needed to pluck out a few weeds knowing that if you didn't pluck them out that they would eventually overrun your garden, wouldn't you do it? The better question is, why wouldn't you?

I would indeed pluck weeds out of a garden.

Are thinking, feeling people the same as weeds?

[RandomGuy]

Is burning in hell for all eternity (infinite punishment) for a finite sin of not believing in God consistent with this loving-ness?



It's pretty clear to me from the passage I cited (did you even read it?)... your confusion stems from the fact that you so willingly want to render the whole concept null by discrediting what you simply don't and can't understand, thereby justifying your own disbelief. That's why you are unable to reconcile what you read with your own sense of judgement (and since you've hardened your heart you are therefore blind to an understanding of scripture itself).

Anyways, the passages you cited don't include the full context of how GOD assessed the situation, and despite the extreme nature of His justice those passages portray His ultimate grace and mercy. For that matter, we cannot weigh the merit of GOD's judgements because we ourselves are imperfect and injust. If you had a garden, and saw that you needed to pluck out a few weeds knowing that if you didn't pluck them out that they would eventually overrun your garden, wouldn't you do it? The better question is, why wouldn't you? GOD 'cut' perverse generations from among Israel's neighboring nations because they were idolatrous, evil, people - but in doing so He prevented the proliferation of countless of other souls which would have sucumbed to the same evil practices. GOD exists outside of time and acted in perfect harmony with His Justice and Holiness.

Now, under the grace provided by the New Covenant (paid for by Christ's blood) the full delivery of GOD's justice will be delayed until Judgement Day.

Which brings me to your next post....

None of that really answered my question.

In your opinion, is infinite punishment for finite crimes consistent with loving-ness?

[RandomGuy]

Oh yeah GOD was soooooo unfair... He destroyed Earth after Noah, his father, and grandfather (Methuselah) had preached about the impending destruction for over 100 years... I mean geesh... how long did it take Noah and his sons to build the ark? Over a hundred years... the people that mocked him probably sounded much like yourself calling GOD a liar and all...

There was no such flood.

Why would the bible talk about something that didn't happen as if it did?

Alternately:

There is no evidence of any global flood that I am aware of. Please present some. Your claim, your burden of proof.

[scott]

Dinosaurs Will Die

[Winehole23]

I would indeed pluck weeds out of a garden.

Are thinking, feeling people the same as weeds?Phenomenul gets the parable backwards. The bible says (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A30&version=NIVUK) "let both grow together until the harvest." But, y'all were talking about the Old Testament, so maybe this observation doesn't quite tally.

aside: the Deity in the bible becomes perceptibly more moral and pious as you go along. Wrath tempered by mercy. A tribal and somewhat provincial G-d becomes becomes more cosmopolitan and universal, in so doing more coming to resemble man's idea of his own piety and righteousness, and leaving behind, somewhat, the awful ecstasies of anger and cruelty.

[RandomGuy]

Well, they were really tall.

It's also hard to believe no one else in the world had a damn boat.

Or that there just isn't that much water around to flood the whole earth. Did god make more? Or did he melt the ice caps? Did he flood everything up to 29,000 feet? If so, did he pull some global warming to keep everything from freezing up there?

So many questions....

Magic. It was a miracle. The was kinda like the TARDIS in that regard, i.e. bigger on the inside than the outside. That is how they kept 365,000 pounds of food for the elephants. They also had a magic way to keep 16,000 pounds of meat for the lions from rotting, and magically created all the genetic diversity needed for the species to begin again without dying off from inbreeding within a generation or two.

Afterwards he disguised all the evidence to make it look like it never happened.


Of course, if you are going to go heavy in on the magic, why not just give all the people a magic heart attack? It would seem a lot easier. But that is just me, what do I know?

[RandomGuy]

Phenomenul gets the parable backwards. The bible says (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+13%3A30&version=NIVUK) "let both grow together until the harvest." But, y'all were talking about the Old Testament, so maybe this observation doesn't quite tally.

aside: the Deity in the bible becomes perceptibly more moral and pious as you go along. Wrath tempered by mercy. A tribal and somewhat provincial G-d becomes becomes more cosmopolitan and universal, in so doing more coming to resemble man's idea of his own piety and righteousness, and leaving behind, somewhat, the awful ecstasies of anger and cruelty.

There are also a lot fewer, and smaller, miracles, to coincide with the rise of writing and knowledge.

Kind of a big coincidence, of the order that is a bit hard to ignore. We figured out pretty quickly that earth was not resting on a huge tree, a huge turtle, or made from the bones of giants.

If a God could create the universe, but not enough evidence of his existence to provide sufficient proof to people once they have figured out the physical universe to the small degree we have so far, that would seem to be a pretty big shortcoming.

What we have left, are the religions that posit a conveniently unfalsifiable version of God/Gods.

It reminds me nothing so much of the Russian guy with the magic healing water. If it didn't cure you, it was because your negative vibes ruined the water. If you send his water to a lab for testing, their negative vibes took out the curing properties.

[Winehole23]

Of course, if you are going to go heavy in on the magic, why not just give all the people a magic heart attack? It would seem a lot easier. But that is just me, what do I know?you've got the "no true scotsman act" down. teasing believers about logical inconsistencies based on what you assume their doctrine to be is not a little ridiculous, and beside the point.

[Winehole23]

making believers look silly is like shooting beef cows with a high-powered rifle and scope. let me know when you find some way to do it without making yourself look pitiless and cruel.

[Winehole23]

ridiculous too, tbh

[RandomGuy]

you've got the "no true scotsman act" down. teasing believers about logical inconsistencies based on what you assume their doctrine to be is not a little ridiculous, and beside the point.

I have not assumed anyone's doctrine, that is why I stick to asking questions.

FWIW, I will not really ever claim that pol pot and others aren't "real" atheists. They most likely were. I said at the outset I thought the whole exercise was pointless, well worn kabuki. Thanks for the name to the "they aren't real Christians" fallacy. That bit of googling got me a new term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

The original point was that evangelical religiosity of the kind that actively and deliberately ignores or denies valid evidence, in order to maintain a preferred/established belief, seems to me to lead to all sorts of other things. That is, if you are willing to, when it is most important, do that, then it makes it all the easier to do it in other ways.

Going over certain ways in which that confirmation bias is readily demonstrable is a good way to show the underlying types of fallacies and inability to consider reality as it is, rather than as one would want it to be, then becomes fair game.

[RandomGuy]

making believers look silly is like shooting beef cows with a high-powered rifle and scope. let me know when you find some way to do it without making yourself look pitiless and cruel.

I try not to be.

At what point does one have a duty to help people though? If someone is holding such an obviously flawed opinion, but won't admit it, ala mouse or cosmored, is there some sort of moral imperitive to at least try to point out the logical consistencies to them, in the hope they might find their way out of the miasma?

I would agree with the warden from Cool Hand Luke at some point though.

Some men, you just can't reach.

[Winehole23]

At what point does one have a duty to help people though? If someone is holding such an obviously flawed opinion, but won't admit it, ala mouse or cosmored, is there some sort of moral imperitive to at least try to point out the logical consistencies to them, in the hope they might find their way out of the miasma?your habitual, malicious teasing of Christians in this forum hardly compares, but no, I see no moral imperative there and agree that people generally can't be fixed, absent the will to fix themselves.

the power and persuasiveness of rational discourse is wildly misoverestimated.

[RandomGuy]

your habitual, malicious teasing of Christians in this forum hardly compares, but no, I see no moral imperative there and agree that people generally can't be fixed, absent the will to fix themselves.

the power and persuasiveness of rational discourse is wildly misoverestimated.

Sooooo.... I should just ignore the digs then?

Accept the idea that "these people are bad, they are atheists, therefore all atheists are bad" idea without challenge?

How would I go about disagreeing with an idea and not be "habitual" or "malicious".

Do tell.

[Winehole23]

disagree all you want. I'm just giving you some feedback on how the way you do it makes you look.

there's a way to disagree without being nasty. admittedly, the other way affords way more opportunities for haughtiness and spite.


aside: responding to umbrage with emotion and umbrage undercuts the appeal to reason you more broadly rely on.

[Phenomanul]

There was no such flood.

Why would the bible talk about something that didn't happen as if it did?

Alternately:

There is no evidence of any global flood that I am aware of. Please present some. Your claim, your burden of proof.

Red herring... Blake brought up Noah's flood... seriously dude. Do you need to constantly argue everything in order to stroke your own ego? Can you just accept the fact that you know NOTHING about a relationship with GOD or what that entails because you 1) refuse to believe in His existence 2) refuse to accept the merits of the book by which the tenets of Christian faith are measured/gauged/stipulated. And since you don't believe either in GOD's existence or the veracity of the Bible how then do you get off on trying to reconcile its passages without an understanding of the doctrines therein?

The fact that you read said book only to try to discredit it keeps you from attaining any real understanding. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledging that this is the dynamic at play.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, I think we all understand that ultimately you have to simply have faith to believe in any religion and not much else -- but as long as we have someone here who believes in the veracity of the bible more or less wholesale, I don't see the problem in asking about its seeming inconsistencies or lack of historical or archaeological corroboration.

[Winehole23]

sure. Phenomenul made his own bed, now he has to lie in it.

[Blake]

Red herring... Blake brought up Noah's flood... seriously dude. Do you need to constantly argue everything in order to stroke your own ego?

It was more of a side bar based on you lying about Gods grace.

if it was really that distracting for you, I'll start an entirely new flood thread.



Can you just accept the fact that you know NOTHING about a relationship with GOD or what that entails because you 1) refuse to believe in His existence 2) refuse to accept the merits of the book by which the tenets of Christian faith are measured/gauged/stipulated. And since you don't believe either in GOD's existence or the veracity of the Bible how then do you get off on trying to reconcile its passages without an understanding of the doctrines therein?

Your faith that I know nothing is strong.

Your logic that I need faith to understand Christian doctrine is stupid.


The fact that you read said book only to try to discredit it keeps you from attaining any real understanding. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledging that this is the dynamic at play.

:lol fuck you, you condescending piece of shit.

[Blake]

sure. Phenomenul made his own bed, now he has to lie in it.

He's being mean to me. Why aren't you scolding him?

[clambake]

not all to blame, tbh. phenom had this programming built in from the beginning.

[RandomGuy]

Red herring... Blake brought up Noah's flood... seriously dude. Do you need to constantly argue everything in order to stroke your own ego? Can you just accept the fact that you know NOTHING about a relationship with GOD or what that entails because you 1) refuse to believe in His existence 2) refuse to accept the merits of the book by which the tenets of Christian faith are measured/gauged/stipulated. And since you don't believe either in GOD's existence or the veracity of the Bible how then do you get off on trying to reconcile its passages without an understanding of the doctrines therein?

The fact that you read said book only to try to discredit it keeps you from attaining any real understanding. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledging that this is the dynamic at play.

Okay, Blake brought it up, for whatever reason.

You are the one talking about the Great Flood as if it happened.

The central argument of the OP is that some people, i.e. no few Republicans, believe things without evidence, and that leads them to develop a habit of doing so, which I think is a bad thing.

You might not be a Republican, but that specific example is useful in demonstrating the kinds of things I am talking about.

As for reconciling the passages in the Bible: that is not for me to do, it is for you to do. You are the one basing claims on what it says. I will not accept your burden of proof.

If I do not understand the doctrines, it would seem to be fairly straightforward to explain them.

As for a relationship with God, for all I know, God could very well exist. I just haven't seen any evidence that points in that direction. I am certainly not going to make the claim there is no God.

[Winehole23]

He's being mean to me. Why aren't you scolding him?you're a big boy. you didn't need any help.

[Phenomanul]

You don't know what he [Joseph Stalin] believed on his deathbed.

XrLzYw6ULYw

For all you know, he could be in heaven waiting for you.


Awkward...

(sorry, back off topic. video is mildly amusing)

No, I definitely don't... the fact of the matter is that he surrounded himself with like-minded individuals and killed off anyone who wasn't. How could someone like him come to terms with a "biblical truth" (whether you believe it as such or not) if he literally had expunged his entire empire of anyone capable of conveying that message to him? Him dying in the same state of wickedness as the one he lived in is the most plausible and likely scenario given the extremely secularist people he chose to surround himself with.

[clambake]

No, I definitely don't... the fact of the matter is that he surrounded himself with like-minded individuals and killed off anyone who wasn't.

much like a flood.

[Phenomanul]

It was more of a side bar based on you lying about Gods grace.

if it was really that distracting for you, I'll start an entirely new flood thread.




Your faith that I know nothing is strong.

Your logic that I need faith to understand Christian doctrine is stupid.



:lol fuck you, you condescending piece of shit.

Anger issues.... strike a nerve did I?

[z0sa]

Christians should just come to accept that God is a ruthless murdering asshole sometimes. In fact, he may even be hypocritical at times. Guess what? He made man in his own image. It shouldn't surprise Christians sometimes he doesn't do shit the way they think he should. That's where the whole faith thing comes into play. Most already have accepted this I think, but they sweep it under the rug because it's, shall we say, not a strong selling point.

[RandomGuy]

disagree all you want. I'm just giving you some feedback on how the way you do it makes you look.

there's a way to disagree without being nasty. admittedly, the other way affords way more opportunities for haughtiness and spite.


aside: responding to umbrage with emotion and umbrage undercuts the appeal to reason you more broadly rely on.

(steps back and takes a deep breath)

Indeed. I try pretty hard not to be malicious, habitually or otherwise.

God knows (HA) I backspace/edit over enough bile to fill a book, and am certainly not infallible, i.e. "do tell".

Going down the path of FatFreddy is far too easy. As I have said before, I am something of a fan of a saying from the Q'uran, to paraphrase "The greatest war is the war against one's lower self".

I will try to do better.

[Phenomanul]

much like a flood.

metaphor fail... and another red herring to boot.

[clambake]

metaphor fail... and another red herring to boot.

how is it a distraction?

[Winehole23]

As I have said before, I am something of a fan of a saying from the Q'uran, to paraphrase "The greatest war is the war against one's lower self".

I will try to do better.that's the kernel of the idea of jihad. I struggle with it too.

[RandomGuy]

The fact that you read [the Bible] only to try to discredit it keeps you from attaining any real understanding. You can't even bring yourself to acknowledging that this is the dynamic at play.

Not really. I read the Bible several times before reaching any conclusions, thank you.

I will even acknowledge some admiration for a few of the ideas and ideals in it. There is wisdom there.

On the same token, there is wisdom in the Q'uran, Baghavad Gita, Iliad, etc.

The wisdom though, is in what we decide it is, not because it is the word of a God. That is all we ever have.

That is the particular dynamic that I think you don't want to admit is at play. You have rejected some things in the Bible, and accepted others based on your own natural judgment.

[z0sa]

As for "republicanism," all bubbles pop eventually. I think there's still a future for the GOP, if they go back to being the self help party. I mean, REALLY being the self help party. Part of 'self help' is educating yourself on current issues and progressing both personally and as a society. There's so much negative stigma, including even about the word "progressive," that is holding the right back in this country.

And the pandering to socially conservative people, mainly Christians, has got to stop. Look around you, look at how people dress, act and speak in public. We live in a permissive society now, which is becoming increasingly more liberal at exponential rates IMHO. We have for over a generation now, maybe a few depending on who you ask. It just is what it is. You can't stop tidal waves with flood gates.

[RandomGuy]

One of my favorite Bible passages:

Mark 12:41-44


He sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. 42 A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. 43 Then he called his disciples and said to them, "Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. 44 For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on."

Helping others when it is easy is not the mark of character and virtue. Helping them when it is difficult is.

FWIW.

[Phenomanul]

Oh, I think we all understand that ultimately you have to simply have faith to believe in any religion and not much else -- but as long as we have someone here who believes in the veracity of the bible more or less wholesale, I don't see the problem in asking about its seeming inconsistencies or lack of historical or archaeological corroboration.

Except that to do it at every turn, in every thread, with every issue, comes off as a deranged obsession - the schtick is annoying.

I get it that you all don't believe... FINE. I personally don't go knocking on your doors trying to get you to believe in GOD.

I also get that you all "hate" that I believe what I do... that you think it's idiodic... the part that you all don't see, is that you all get more worked up over my reasons to believe than I do about the reasons why you all don't.

What does get me worked up is the insistence from those in your camp to suggest that belief in GOD makes believers intellectually inferior. That you all constantly proliferate a revisionist view of history to suggest that atheism or humanistic naturalism brought about the Scientific movement (when that was most definitely not the case).

But whatever... People like Blake and clambake are going to use foul, scornful, derisive language every chance they get... meh... whatever floats their boat.

[clambake]

jesus dude, i've already conceded on why you believe. i understand it .....completely.

[RandomGuy]

metaphor fail... and another red herring to boot.

It isn't a red herring.

The topic at hand is people believing things without real evidence to do so, i.e. insulating them from the real ascertainable truth.

Believing in something that provably did not by the evidence available, bears directly on that.

"Noah's flood happened as the Bible said it did" is a verifiable, falsifiable claim. If you believe it happened, and ignore the physical evidence it didn't, that would seem to be pretty important.

Don't you agree?

[GoodOdor]

What does get me worked up is the insistence from those in your camp to suggest that belief in GOD makes believers intellectually inferior.

It's pretty well documented that religious people, on a whole, are less intelligent. The more educated people are, the less likely they are to believe in stupid stuff like creationism/the bible.

[Winehole23]

GoodOdor: smarts ain't everything, boss.

btw, is that good cause to treat individuals as if they were statistical abstractions?

[Phenomanul]

Not really. I read the Bible several times before reaching any conclusions, thank you.

I will even acknowledge some admiration for a few of the ideas and ideals in it. There is wisdom there.

On the same token, there is wisdom in the Q'uran, Baghavad Gita, Iliad, etc.

The wisdom though, is in what we decide it is, not because it is the word of a God. That is all we ever have.

That is the particular dynamic that I think you don't want to admit is at play. You have rejected some things in the Bible, and accepted others based on your own natural judgment.

I haven't dismissed anything in the bible... I simply understand that there's a context for it.

I didn't get to answer you question about the directives to "murder" entire peoples including children... like I said, GOD in his existence (not bound by time) likely chose to cut off said wickedness in order to spare the loss of far more lives. And like in the Noah example (whether or not you believe the flood story) he gave people MORE than enough time to turn away from their wickedness and repent.

As for children, they belong to Him anyways... they don't go to Hell as they do not yet know or understand the difference between right and wrong. And no there is no set cut-off age... it depends on when they understand the consequences of their actions. GOD shows children mercy given that even they are sinful (seriously, most children are innately self-centered and selfish... which is why we have to teach them that sharing is good, among other selfless virtues).

Anyways, I have to head out for lunch (I mean can I step away to eat Blake, or is that a problem - given that you couldn't even contain yourself from mocking my absence a few pages ago - I don't live in the forum dude)...

[RandomGuy]

What does get me worked up is the insistence from those in your camp to suggest that belief in GOD makes believers intellectually inferior. That you all constantly proliferate a revisionist view of history to suggest that atheism or humanistic naturalism brought about the Scientific movement (when that was most definitely not the case).

"most definitely" is not that way because you say it is. I reject that.

Belief in God/Allah/Zeus/Odin/Vishnu does not make one intellectually inferior, per se.

I think one can certainly say though, that some ideas about God are illogical, and some are actively contradicted by what we understand and know about our universe.

Even you would agree with that last bit, albeit for different reasons.

[clambake]

god just assumed they'd be bad. great.

sounds like a guy in the white house that carries something called a football.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't get to answer you question about the directives to "murder" entire peoples including children...

Anyways, I have to head out for lunch (I mean can I step away to eat Blake, or is that a problem - given that you couldn't even contain yourself from mocking my absence a few pages ago - I don't live in the forum dude)...

Those questions will remain for you, whenever you decide to address them, if ever. If you choose not to answer them meaningfully, you should ask yourself why that is. God should never be afraid of honest answers, IMO.

Have a good lunch. My time here is up as well.

[Phenomanul]

It isn't a red herring.

The topic at hand is people believing things without real evidence to do so, i.e. insulating them from the real ascertainable truth.

Believing in something that provably did not by the evidence available, bears directly on that.

"Noah's flood happened as the Bible said it did" is a verifiable, falsifiable claim. If you believe it happened, and ignore the physical evidence it didn't, that would seem to be pretty important.

Don't you agree?

It's a metaphor fail, because I never equated Stalin with GOD. GOD's decision to wipe out earth's wickedness (after hundreds of years of trying to get folks to repent, no less) cannot be placed on equal footing with Stalin's motivation to be a tyrannical dictator. One is an omnipotent infinite being and the other was bound by the finite limitations of his mortal body. Again not comparable.

[Phenomanul]

Peace out!

[clambake]

It's a metaphor fail, because I never equated Stalin with GOD. GOD's decision to wipe out earth's wickedness (after hundreds of years of trying to get folks to repent, no less) cannot be placed on equal footing with Stalin's motivation to be a tyrannical dictator. One is an omnipotent infinite being and the other was bound by the finite limitations of his mortal body. Again not comparable.

he also killed people that committed no sin. thats tyranny.

[z0sa]

he also killed people that committed no sin. thats tyranny.

That asshole Adam made sure we were all born with sin. It's called original sin. So even someone who lived a perfect life doesn't receive salvation without Jesu Cristo.

However I'm pretty sure everyone gets a second chance during the Second Coming. Pastors don't like you knowing that though.

[clambake]

no big deal. i found out you can stumble all you want as long as you praise the lord.

[Blake]

you're a big boy. you didn't need any help.

was just wondering if you were going to scold everyone equally.

I thought I would give you the opportunity.

[TeyshaBlue]

was just wondering if you were going to scold everyone equally.

I thought I would give you the opportunity.

You're the arbiter of scolding? What..are you a Catholic School Marm?:lol

[Blake]

Anger issues.... strike a nerve did I?

idiocy sometimes strikes a nerve with me.

Luckily for you, I'm not an OT prophet because I might send a bear to kill your children.

[RandomGuy]

...

[RandomGuy]

Q: Why would God murder children?



As for children, they belong to Him anyways... they don't go to Hell as they do not yet know or understand the difference between right and wrong. And no there is no set cut-off age... it depends on when they understand the consequences of their actions. GOD shows children mercy given that even they are sinful (seriously, most children are innately self-centered and selfish... which is why we have to teach them that sharing is good, among other selfless virtues).

"They belong to him anyways".

Wow.

I missed that bit.

Restated:

"If God did it, it is moral". That is your working definition.

God ordering children hacked to death is ok.
Stalin ordering children hacked to death is not ok.

This is logically consistent to you, because you have placed God outside any reasonable standard of behavior that rational people could come up with.

I have been trying really hard to be respectful, but you have just rationalized murdering children in cold blood, be it drowning or put to the sword. That pisses me off at a very deep level. I can hang with you being dishonest with me, and yourself, but this...

Your beliefs do not make you intellectually inferior. They make you morally inferior.

Under no circumstances would I ever think that hacking children to death or drowning them for what their parents did is moral. Anyone ordering this is evil. The God you believe in, is by that simple understandable metric, evil. In time, out of time, omnipotent, infinite, finite, whatever. My moral system is superior to yours, and His, for that matter, on this basis.

Nothing makes butchering children acceptable. Nothing. Shame on you for even hinting at it.