Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on April 29, 2004, 09:33:55 am
-
Apocolyptic Postmillenialism is why the US has GONE TO **** in the wake of Schrub - it also explains all his policies: attacking education, freedom of thought, speech and religion, yada yada
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0%2c3604%2c1195568%2c00.html
-
Well, that explains the nukes.
-
it explains everything -- you just have to realize the depth of it
read the book i've been Citing From
The Fundmantals of Extremism: The Christian Right in America
-
I know all about Christian Fundamentalists.
They're the single greatest threat to mankind since the plague.
If they had their way, they'd bring about the next Dark Age.
Though I suppose this means there's a silver lining on the mass-immigration after all. By the time they start killing people, Britain will be so full of Muslims we might actually be able to slaughter the self-righteous sons of *****es.
-
Originally posted by an0n
I know all about Christian Fundamentalists.
They're the single greatest threat to mankind since the plague.
If they had their way, they'd bring about the next Dark Age.
Though I suppose this means there's a silver lining on the mass-immigration after all. By the time they start killing people, Britain will be so full of Muslims we might actually be able to slaughter the self-righteous sons of *****es.
unfortunately, some religions are dragging humanity to another war, possibly one on a global scale.. (and i don't mean this terrorist bull**** either)..
at least the atheists and the people who are "disenchanted" or show apathy with religion don't act righteous.. to my mind, this latest batch of 'radical' islam extremists are just repeating history, which the catholic church did so many years ago with the crusades and the inquisition.
EDIT: to my mind, terrorists, and other people who take religion to the extreme just hide behind their books, dieties, and words. they use it to justify their actions.
-
the biggest threat to global safety, economy and science is the US Fundamentalist Movement
-
It certainly is a cycling of world events. I'm not surprised at all, especially by the rampant misrepresentation of what the Christian faith is. It is truly a sad tale that such evil can result from such good, but I believe that's the story of the whole world in some measure anyway.
-
You remember the parts of the bible about God committing genocide, right?
-
you've got something backwards there
Good can be done in the name of religion - but the same Good can be done without the religion
Good done in the name of religion is good from Bad - Irrationality, which is all religion is, is not a good thing to found your thinking about factuality off of
-
Originally posted by an0n
You remember the parts of the bible about God committing genocide, right?
I don't think any of that can be regarded with any sense, though, unless we're willing to accept that all of humanity justly deserves destruction.
-
So what? You're just ignoring several clear examples of God indescriminately wiping out entire cities?
Face it, the Bible/Christianity as not all bunnies and forgiveness. Infact, it's only marginally less violent than the Qur'an/Islam.
-
I didn't say ignore. :p But I think those actions were just.
And I totally agree that the Bible is not all bunnies and forgiveness (I didn't realise the Bible was any measure of bunnies, for instance :D). Noting the Bible's stance that God requires justice whatever the price, violent destruction of many things is very important in Christianity.
-
You don't think the actions of the deity upon which the entire religion is based were just, but you still think it's a good religion?
Are you stoned?
-
Kazan, how many of these stupid political threads are you gonna post?
-
Did I write something by mistake? I do think those divine actions were just.
-
Sorry, misread it.
Anyways: So you're advocating the genocide of entire populations because they don't agree with your interpretation of a book? Hmmm. Where've I heard that before.....
And also, by implication, you're saying that genocide is , in some cases, a good thing.
That's just plain ****ed up.
-
No, no, let's rewind a bit. For the sake of argument, let's forget about nations for a while; I have all of mankind in view. The crime of mankind is not misinterpretation of a book alone; it's rebellion against God. That's a whole separate discussion, but for now I'll assume that that's the action and it deserves death. If we are taking the Bible's POV, it's quite clear that all of mankind has taken part in that rebellion (even when it hit the Israelite authors themselves very hard - have a read of the opening chapters of Isaiah, for instance, where God is lamenting the sin of Israel and pronouncing judgement on them).
Again, genocide? Well, we do believe in a justice system. Many Western justice systems (like the current Australian one, which I know well enough to talk about a little) will not inflict the death penalty as a throwback to the Christian foundation of death being a punishment that only God ought to inflict. However, suppose that man did have the right (and indeed, the responsibility) to inflict death on those who were guilty of crime. This punishment is not good in itself but good because it protects and ensures the safety of others. If several people are guilty, then we have no qualms with pronouncing justice on all of them. What if the whole world were guilty? Then, I would say that death would be deserved by the whole world.
-
How will the Antichrist take over the world?
He will come upon the world scene offering peace to a very troubled world, according to Daniel, chapter 8. But, he will, through peace, destroy many people, the prophecy says.
a small section of raptureready.com faq. Sounds familiar to a certain world leader if ya ask me, of the 4 star variety.
-
Setekh just ENDORSED GENOCIDE
-
Revelation, chapter 6, has him coming as the rider on the white horse. He has a bow in his hand, but has no arrows. This symbolizes that he has might but offers peace. This is deception because he is, by nature, a conqueror; the red horse of war will soon follow. This is the beginning of the campaign called Armageddon.
He will, no doubt, be the most attractive, charismatic world leader to appear on the world stage. He will come speaking great words that will mesmerize most people. Eventually, he will enslave most of the world with his mark and number system of transacting business. That same system will eventually cause all to worship him as God, or be killed.
the 1st section also fits, but the 2nd deosnt - yet :-/
-
jiggy are you supposting the millenialists (both pre- and post-)
-
Or you could believe that the fate of men is ruled by their actions and not by a text that was written over 2000 years ago....
-
somedays i think our species will survive... then I encounter people who actually believe such nonseness as millenialism... we're doomed
-
With every group you get the leaders and the followers.
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
Revelation, chapter 6, has him coming as the rider on the white horse. He has a bow in his hand, but has no arrows. This symbolizes that he has might but offers peace. This is deception because he is, by nature, a conqueror; the red horse of war will soon follow. This is the beginning of the campaign called Armageddon.
That's not Armageddon, that's the Battle of Minas Tirith!
He will, no doubt, be the most attractive, charismatic world leader to appear on the world stage. He will come speaking great words that will mesmerize most people. Eventually, he will enslave most of the world with his mark and number system of transacting business. That same system will eventually cause all to worship him as God, or be killed.
Whee! It's me! I told you the universe loved me :p.
-
******slaps an0n* go derail a different thread
-
I was belittling his methods of deriving the identity of the anti-christ.
You could apply that **** to Kofi Annan if you tried hard enough.
-
very true
-
i suppose so
'bows'
-
Fair to point out that the Islamic terrorists have their own apocalyptic agenda on the go, member reading an article in which the assassination of Arafat and Musharref in the same month were among signs which heralded the coming of the Mahdi.
-
who knows, maybe anon is the antichirst , he has the ambition :p
-
Originally posted by Gank
...the coming of the Mahdi.
Muad'dib?
:p
-
Great topic. Let's see here...
*looks at his dual 19" monitor flatscreens*
*looks around his air-conditioned office, that could pay a bit better but certainly covers the bills*
*looks over at co-worker he frequently engages in political debates with, usually resulting in very crass comments about the current US administration
*looks at tax refund check recently received*
*looks out the window at car almost paid for*
*Calls roomate who is currently at home enjoying air conditioning and a day off in our huge 2 bedroom place that costs only 470(US) a month*
Yeah, America has realllly gone to s*it. Oh the humanity...:doubt:
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
Revelation,
Look people, Revelation is what you get when you do drugs.
Say NO to drugs!
-
If you start talking to drugs, it's probably too late already ;)
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Great topic. Let's see here...
*looks at his dual 19" monitor flatscreens*
*looks around his air-conditioned office, that could pay a bit better but certainly covers the bills*
*looks over at co-worker he frequently engages in political debates with, usually resulting in very crass comments about the current US administration
*looks at tax refund check recently received*
*looks out the window at car almost paid for*
*Calls roomate who is currently at home enjoying air conditioning and a day off in our huge 2 bedroom place that costs only 470(US) a month*
Yeah, America has realllly gone to s*it. Oh the humanity...:doubt:
See, this exactly why the rest of the world hates you, you see nothing wrong with spending the equivilent of several small countries gdp on weapons designed for mass murder as long as YOU have it easy.
-
and ionia23 is ignoring the fact that unemployement is at record high levels, our civil and human rights are being taken away by the government, etc
ionia23 is being a camel - head in the sand
-
Thats an ostrich methinks
-
Originally posted by Gank
Thats an ostrich methinks
with genetic manipulation? who knows what it is :p
Could be a giant squirrel
-
Originally posted by Kazan
and ionia23 is ignoring the fact that unemployement is at record high levels, our civil and human rights are being taken away by the government, etc
ionia23 is being a camel - head in the sand
I'm not unemployed, even though I work in the volatile tech industry, like a lot of other people around here I presume (presume, mind you). I have been through layoffs before and dusted myself off quite nicely.
I am also not sitting in Guantanamo Bay, or some Orwellian cell courtesy of the FBI/CIA/Secret Service for talking smack about the current administration. I also know where to draw the line (no threats).
I also behave myself in airports.
I also vote.
I don't, however, see the entire country going to s***.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Thats an ostrich methinks
that too... that's what i get for trying to be witty just before a final exam
-
ionia23 you're still ignoring the issue because they haven't affected you YET, well they have you jsut don't acknowledge the affect
you're just ignoring the truth.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ionia23 you're still ignoring the issue because they haven't affected you YET, well they have you jsut don't acknowledge the affect
you're just ignoring the truth.
This truth you speak of, is that the part about America going to s***? And this is based on..what, unemployment? high gas prices? questionable foreign policy?
Seriously, how do these affect me unless I choose to, say, visit certain nations? Pay more at the pump? (this irritates me, but the free lunch had to end sooner or later).
Let's say, for argument's sake you are right. What exactly are you going to do about it?
Run for office?
Organize a revolution?
Complain on a messageboard no government official has any interest in?* (Unless you want to get all 'X-Files' about it..)
:lol:
Side note: I'm not calling you names, would the same in return be too much to ask for? No disrespect intended, I simply disagree with you.
-
'Let them Eat Cake'?
The problem is Ionia that the ride was only ever free for a relatively small percentage of people, it might suit you, but then, as you say, you are in no mood to do anything about it. You, and many of us here, sitting typing on our computers, are part of that small percentage.
-
Ah yes, apocalyptic postmillennialism: proof that you can take something as simple as 'be good' and turn it into 'kill people because God wants you to'.
The human race is doomed. :)
-
Originally posted by ionia23
This truth you speak of, is that the part about America going to s***?
JEeze you're blind
And this is based on..what, unemployment? high gas prices? questionable foreign policy?
All of the above (well,, not gas prices)
Unemployement -> All time Highs
Foreign Policy -> What Allies (only the british govt.. everyone else in the 'coalition of the willing' was coerced with threats of losing their foreign aid from us)
Constitution Getting shiat on constantly by the current administration
Bad Domestic and Global Environmental, Economic and Social Policy
All out assault on the education system
Seriously, how do these affect me unless I choose to, say, visit certain nations?
So person A forcing their religion on you doesn't bother you
Harm to the environment doesn't affect you
The rise in the crime rate due to higher poverty (direct affect of bad economy, indirect affect of the assault on the education system, indirect affect of increased fundamentalism)
The rise in the crime rate due to higher levels of mental immaturity/illness/instability (direct affect of rise in fundamentalism, assault on education system)
Loss of Personal Freedoms (USA PATRIOT, other - PS PATRIOT act is a functional duplicate of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution)
Imposition of fundamentalist christianity upon you via legislation
Increase crime rate due to racism/sexism/homophibia (direct affect of rise in fundamentalism)
Increase in domestic abuse, decrease in female self-confident (fundamentalism)
Need I keep going on, the fact that you cannot see these things means you're not paying attention
What exactly are you going to do about it?
Eliminate the CAUSE of all those problems - first we need to chop the fundamentalist movement's head off - ie vote **** and is neoconservative war council out of office
Organize a revolution?
If it ever comes to that
Complain on a messageboard no government official has any interest in?* (Unless you want to get all 'X-Files' about it..)
Raising awareness in people around you is what you do on a message board - the last thing the fundamentalist movement wants is people knowing what they're up to blatantly
they want people brainwashed, not analyzing their motives and affects
Side note: I'm not calling you names, would the same in return be too much to ask for? No disrespect intended, I simply disagree with you.
People who subscribe to "Was Ich nicht weiß, macht mich nicht heiß" are extremely irritating, and are exactly what allowed hitler to get into the position he was in when he seized power and started the camps
-
Originally posted by mikhael
The human race is doomed. :)
i give us 20 - 30 years before the planet goes to ****. Post apocolyptic world here we come.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
'Let them Eat Cake'?
The problem is Ionia that the ride was only ever free for a relatively small percentage of people, it might suit you, but then, as you say, you are in no mood to do anything about it. You, and many of us here, sitting typing on our computers, are part of that small percentage.
I vote, that's my means of protest. The powers that be could care less about me. You're talking about a very tiny group of persons expected to make decisions for many millions of people. Of course they have to deal in abstracts, there's no other way.
It's not really a question of "mood", though I catch your reference to Marie Antoinette's rather uneducated quote. It's practicality. What can any of us really do, other than complain a lot and vote? More to the point, what should we do?
-
the 'powers that be' are catering to the Christian version of the Taliban, not the general population - we shouldn't be tolerating it at all - we should be daily yelling at them, censuring them, etc
not being indifferent because of ignoring it - because by ignoring it you think the problem will go away
no ignoring the fact that they cater to the Christian Taliban ENABLES them to continue doing so
-
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=4962395§ion=news
Dunno whats more worrying, the fact the secret service investigated it or somebody reported him for the drawings.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
More to the point, what should we do?
mass rioting, overthrowing the goverment, instigating a revolution/rebellion into a new system of rule, complete anarchy (we're heading in that direction anyway) spring to mind
-
my point exactly - ionia23 had his/her head in the sand
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Unemployement -> All time Highs
Foreign Policy -> What Allies (only the british govt.. everyone else in the 'coalition of the willing' was coerced with threats of losing their foreign aid from us)
Hmm, threats of the removal of foreign aid. I doubt very much Spain needed any aid from us, and they left. Of course, all they really did was send the terrorists a message that they won. There's already another thread on this, so I'll leave it be.
Constitution Getting shiat on constantly by the current administration
Bad Domestic and Global Environmental, Economic and Social Policy
All out assault on the education system
Education has been a thorn in the side of every administration for decades. I didn't expect **** to do much about that. No one does, to my eternal chagrin.
As far as I see, the Constitution hasn't been rewritten yet. Blatantly ignored in some cases (Guantanamo bay, perhaps).
So person A forcing their religion on you doesn't bother you
Who's forcing their religion on me? I don't see myself being punished for not going to any particular church.
Please, please, please tell me this isn't about that "under God" nonsense....
Harm to the environment doesn't affect you
This one's a toughie as I found myself "punished" for critiquing Brazil about their policy of razing the rainforest as quickly as possible. There are few cultures on this planet that can claim to be totally "environment friendly". And I mean few . This administration could do a much better job of lessening environmental impacts on a national scale.
The problem isn't going to be the developed nations over the next 20 years, it will be all the 3rd world nations entering their respective Industrial ages virtually simultaneously. We could also share pollution controlling technology with those nations.
The rise in the crime rate due to higher poverty (direct affect of bad economy, indirect affect of the assault on the education system, indirect affect of increased fundamentalism)
Conversely, the rise in white-collar crimes as well. Crime is a result of survival or greed, something that spreads equally across all income brackets.
The rise in the crime rate due to higher levels of mental immaturity/illness/instability (direct affect of rise in fundamentalism, assault on education system)
This is ludicrous.
Loss of Personal Freedoms (USA PATRIOT, other - PS PATRIOT act is a functional duplicate of Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution)
Yes, I've lost the freedom to carry firearms and nail clippers on airplanes.
Imposition of fundamentalist christianity upon you via legislation
What is the difference between fundamentalist christianity and christianity? I recall no law being passed that says I have to follow any religion I don't want to. Nobody arrests me for not going to church, or covering my head in the presence, or praying a certain number of times per day, or wearing my beard a certain length.
Increase crime rate due to racism/sexism/homophibia (direct affect of rise in fundamentalism)
Three things which have existed since time out of mind. See, not everyone is going to be thrilled about successful women, blacks getting the right to vote, and homosexual couples holding hands in public. Some people are going to put up a fight about it because they don't know any better. Each generation is going to become progressively more accepting of racial mixing, sexual equality, and sexual diversity, but it will not happen overnight. You're seeing an increase in crimes related to this because the victims of such crimes are much more in the public eye.
Increase in domestic abuse, decrease in female self-confident (fundamentalism)
To quote my mother: "The only thing a man can do that I can do is piss up a rope". Now, you go ahead and tell me women are losing their confidence.
Need I keep going on, the fact that you cannot see these things means you're not paying attention
I do see the subjects behind your points, but I also disagree with them. Different perspective, perhaps.
Eliminate the CAUSE of all those problems - first we need to chop the fundamentalist movement's head off - ie vote **** and is neoconservative war council out of office
Exactly what I said as well. That's power. Walking around angry about things out of my immediate control is..counterproductive.
Raising awareness in people around you is what you do on a message board - the last thing the fundamentalist movement wants is people knowing what they're up to blatantly they want people brainwashed, not analyzing their motives and affects
Unfortunately for the fundamentalists you speak of, there's a thing called the First Amendment which they are utterly powerless to overturn. As long as that exists, they will fail.
People who subscribe to "Was Ich nicht weiß, macht mich nicht heiß" are extremely irritating, and are exactly what allowed hitler to get into the position he was in when he seized power and started the camps
I am so not going to dignify that with a reply.
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
mass rioting, overthrowing the goverment, instigating a revolution/rebellion into a new system of rule, complete anarchy (we're heading in that direction anyway) spring to mind
Or perhaps a "coalition of the willing" could come in and replace our entire infrastructure for us?
You post an interesting solution, complete anarchy. Can you really envision what it would be like to live in a world like that?
-
its pretty hard to imagine really, the modern society hasnt seen it happen before on such a scale.
-
Jesus Ionia you really dont know ****. You think the patriot act is there to stop you carrying stuff on planes?
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
its pretty hard to imagine really, the modern society hasnt seen it happen before on such a scale.
I can do it thinking of a group of like 20 people. But 260 million? I dunno....
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ionia23 is being a camel - head in the sand
Originally posted by Gank
Thats an ostrich methinks
Since neither animal actually sticks its head in the sand one is as good as the the other :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Since neither animal actually sticks its head in the sand one is as good as the the other :D
I don't know whether or not that was meant to be supportive, thank you nonetheless.:yes: :D :yes2:
-
ionia: Basically, the ignore the fact that a sizeable chunk of the world's population is suffering so that you can have Nikes, air-conditioning and a 19-inch flatscreen. Its not that they are suffering parallel to your own "easy life", though that would be bad in itself. One is a direct cause of the other.
Tell me how this is any different than the principle of slavery, colonialism, and all the other bull**** that America has allegedly left behind?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
ionia: Basically, the ignore the fact that a sizeable chunk of the world's population is suffering so that you can have Nikes, air-conditioning and a 19-inch flatscreen. Its not that they are suffering parallel to your own "easy life", though that would be bad in itself. One is a direct cause of the other.
Tell me how this is any different than the principle of slavery, colonialism, and all the other bull**** that America has allegedly left behind?
Unfortunately, this is one of the many "breakdowns" in our differing perspectives. Am I expected to subscribe to the theory that the only reasons others "have not" is because we "have"? This country, as a breakaway British colony, has only been at it for a little over 300 years. That's some mighty fast growth. Some of the country you're inferring (my presumption entirely) have been around 1000, 2000+ years or more. How come they didn't come up with this stuff beforehand?
I can hear the arguments coming about "First World exploiting third world labor" (and this isn't just an American thing). This is another part I'm honestly divided on. Why are there no jobs in their own country? IF someone in company X can make more bread working for an American oufit set up on their soil, rather than a national one, why not take the extra money?
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I don't know whether or not that was meant to be supportive, thank you nonetheless.:yes: :D :yes2:
Neither really. Just trying to put to bed the myth that they bury their heads. :D I know most people simply use it as an expression and don't believe it's true but still :)
To be honest it surprises me that there are people who still believe it's true. This is a 9 foot tall bird with a top running speed of over 40mph and a kick that could kill a man with a single blow. And people think they bury their heads when scared? :lol:
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Neither really. Just trying to put to bed the myth that they bury their heads. :D I know most people simply use it as an expression and don't believe it's true but still :)
To be honest it surprises me that there are people who still believe it's true. This is a 9 foot tall bird with a top running speed of over 40mph and a kick that could kill a man with a single blow. And people think they bury their heads when scared? :lol:
Here's a laugh for you.
A mere 40 miles north of me is a rather large ostrich farm.
-
Rictor its not that the man doesnt understand, he doesnt care.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Here's a laugh for you.
A mere 40 miles north of me is a rather large ostrich farm.
It'd only take an hour for them to get to your house and kick you to death.
I live less than three miles away from white lions. Kept in the open. God damn safari parks.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Unfortunately, this is one of the many "breakdowns" in our differing perspectives. Am I expected to subscribe to the theory that the only reasons others "have not" is because we "have"? This country, as a breakaway British colony, has only been at it for a little over 300 years. That's some mighty fast growth. Some of the country you're inferring (my presumption entirely) have been around 1000, 2000+ years or more. How come they didn't come up with this stuff beforehand?
I can hear the arguments coming about "First World exploiting third world labor" (and this isn't just an American thing). This is another part I'm honestly divided on. Why are there no jobs in their own country? IF someone in company X can make more bread working for an American oufit set up on their soil, rather than a national one, why not take the extra money?
A whole bunch of African nations have formed since de-colonization, in the past 50 years. No South American nation can possibly be more than 400-500 years old, though most are quite a bit younger. Most of Southern Asia got control of its governments back in the past 50-100 years. Many countries that were formerly under the USSR (To the East and to the South notably) have undegone major political changes since the fall of Communism.
So, pretty far off the mark there. Look at the countries which are currently in the ****ter; almost all are former colonies.
And no, Third World exploitation is by no means resitcted to America. But the most numerous and worst offenders are American corporations.
Read up on free trade a bit, things may become clearer. The power of independent political and economic action is pretty much gone from Third World countries. The US has such enormous amounts of influence to throw around on behalf of multinations, that the vast majority of countries are powerless to disobey, unless its armed rebellion.
-
Originally posted by Styxx
Muad'dib?
:p
In the event of the Butlerian Jihad, hide your heavily modded computer and collection of computer games.
-
* drinks tea *
-
Originally posted by Rictor
A whole bunch of African nations have formed since de-colonization, in the past 50 years. No South American nation can possibly be more than 400-500 years old, though most are quite a bit younger. Most of Southern Asia got control of its governments back in the past 50-100 years. Many countries that were formerly under the USSR (To the East and to the South notably) have undegone major political changes since the fall of Communism.
So, pretty far off the mark there. Look at the countries which are currently in the ****ter; almost all are former colonies.
And no, Third World exploitation is by no means resitcted to America. But the most numerous and worst offenders are American corporations.
Read up on free trade a bit, things may become clearer. The power of independent political and economic action is pretty much gone from Third World countries. The US has such enormous amounts of influence to throw around on behalf of multinations, that the vast majority of countries are powerless to disobey, unless its armed rebellion.
I think I get it. Any country that was once a colony of another country is still suffering from the effects of said-colonization.
But what's that say about America? Was it not a colony itself that rebelled?
And how many of these countries were American colonies?
You also mentioned that America has reached a level of power signifigant enough to influence just about any country it wants.
What would you prefer that influence be used for? Or, barring, that would you have a slightly higher opinion of America if it went 100% isolationist? (no purchasing of foreign products, or sale of domestic products to foreigners, sealed borders, zero trade, return of American corporations from overseas, etc.?)
I'm honestly not being a smartass on #2.
-
We had some economic colonies (basically dominating the government with money from businesses), but not quite on the same scale as Germany and England. Close, but not quite.
In the event of pure isolationism, meanwhile, I'm moving to Canada.
-
So perhaps armed rebellion is the answer?
-
Sorry to drag this thing back a few pages, but Setekh - what the hell is wrong with you?
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
We had some economic colonies (basically dominating the government with money from businesses), but not quite on the same scale as Germany and England. Close, but not quite.
In the event of pure isolationism, meanwhile, I'm moving to Canada.
Okay, I get it on that.
Despite my appearance of nationalism, I did write in another thread about this...how do I put it, utter ****ed up insanity that went on with American foreign policy starting at the end of WWII and running through the 1970's. I'm just astonished when I read some of the things the various administrations did, well, everywhere. It makes no sense to me at all.
I just wonder, would isolationism be the way to go?
-
Originally posted by ionia23
What would you prefer that influence be used for? Or, barring, that would you have a slightly higher opinion of America if it went 100% isolationist? (no purchasing of foreign products, or sale of domestic products to foreigners, sealed borders, zero trade, return of American corporations from overseas, etc.?)
you realise your country would fall apart within a week.
Your country needs oil, badly. Consumes 25% of world production. You stop importing it you can say goodbye to major industry, transport etc etc. Imagine a city of 20 million like new york with no food supply.
-
*sighs* i'm not even going to bother giving a answer borken down by parts to the big post
you are totally freaking naive - everything i said in that post is BACKED UP BETTER THAN A SHIVAN WITH A SATHANAS
You are ignorant to the Nature of the USA PATRIOT Act, you are ignorant the nature of many of the laws that the current adminstration is trying to pas.. yada yada
you're just plain ignorant -- You're the poster child for the criminally ignorant. The reason that asshat is in office is so many people like you don't look up from your feet to the horizon to see what the hell is going on around you
The ****ing man tried to get bigotry written into our constitution! Are you that ****ing blind!
-
Originally posted by Kazan
the fact that unemployement is at record high levels
[/b]
Hardly, Unemployment is about 4.5-5%, that's hardly record levels. Unemployment was in DOUBLE DIGITS in the 30's.
our civil and human rights are being taken away by the government
I'll agree that it's absurd to strip search little-old ladies in airports, but the soldiers have not in the past, are not now and will not in the future be marching down the streets of America shooting people for Anti-Government propaganda.
Your little piss-ant complaining about Dubya's handling of the situation is getting old. I'm onto you, you small-minded bugger, if 9/11 had not happened and we weren't at war(make no mistake it is a war) you would find some reason to whine and *****, and don't say you wouldn't.
-
Originally posted by Gank
you realise your country would fall apart within a week.
Your country needs oil, badly. Consumes 25% of world production. You stop importing it you can say goodbye to major industry, transport etc etc. Imagine a city of 20 million like new york with no food supply.
We could still ship food in with trains and the like. And New York only has about 10 million.
-
Thought it was twenty, and your whole train system is electric? And the electrical grid is totally oil free?
-
Liberator: you don't even know what the **** im talking about so I highly advise you shut your trap
Of course you'd support him in what I'm talking about Since you're a Neoconservative homophobic misogynist bastard
[the only part of that of questionable factuality is the last word - the other three imply the last one - so that's not an insult, just a statement of fact]
-
Originally posted by Kazan
*sighs* i'm not even going to bother giving a answer borken down by parts to the big post
I understand, I went a bit overboard on that one.
you are totally freaking naive - everything i said in that post is BACKED UP BETTER THAN A SHIVAN WITH A SATHANAS
Well, given, from some perspectives that might be the case. I'm sure you could find plenty of people to agree with you, as could I. And, if I recall correctly, wasn't it one dinky little Herc that helped take down the Sathanas you're referring to? Any argument can be torpedoed with the right point at the right time. Your statements were very strong, this is true. But backed? I didn't see it, I'm sorry.
You are ignorant to the Nature of the USA PATRIOT Act, you are ignorant the nature of many of the laws that the current adminstration is trying to pas.. yada yada
The Patriot Act was signed during a time of deep-rooted panic in this nation and administration. It will not last. And as for the laws this administration is trying to pass, sure they're Orwellian. But there are plenty of congressional leaders who disagree with them, and plenty in the citzenry who do as well.
you're just plain ignorant -- You're the poster child for the criminally ignorant. The reason that asshat is in office is so many people like you don't look up from your feet to the horizon to see what the hell is going on around you
I am doing my best to remain objective and level-headed, despite some of my outbursts in earlier threads. There's a number of different opinions around here worth investigating, including yours, or I wouldn't respond. However, please knock it off with the names. I've extended you that courtesy, please do likewise.
President **** got elected due to a number of questionable votes in the state of Florida. I did get up and vote that day, and I voted for Gore (lesser of two evils, but I truly feared Tipper being in a position of real power. Anyone in the arts should..). I did my part then, I will do likewise in November.
The ****ing man tried to get bigotry written into our constitution! Are you that ****ing blind!
And Strom Thurmond fathered a child with a black woman while he was campaigning for segregation. There shouldn't have to be a Constitutional amendment to extend current marital benefits to same-sex couples.
Sexual activity is protected under various privacy laws. You may not ask me if I have sex with my wife (not that I have one) for it's not your business. So, with sexual relations off the table, what else is there? Cohabitation?
I can think of a number of married couples where sexual activity is non-existent (ho ho ho). Does this render a marriage null and void? Boy i'd love to see THAT on Court TV.
"She can have the alimony, but I want some p***y payments!" - Chris Rock
I live with another guy. Whether or not we're "carnally bonded" can't be considered part of the equation. Therefore, a marriage ban on same-sex couples is already unlawful. People in a decision-making capacity are fighting as we speak.
Sure, President **** considered and/or tried to have a Constitutional amendment added banning same-sex marriages. He can try all he wants. Unless he's able to fill every seat in the Supreme Court with people who believe exactly as he do, it'll never happen. Even if he did, it would be irrelevant because.....
Congress has to make the determination on the legal definition of marriage. This is to prevent a marriage being legal in one state and illegal in another.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
We could still ship food in with trains and the like. And New York only has about 10 million.
It'd be amazing to see, switching from fossil fuels to alternatives, over a course of 10 years....
Yeah, we could adjust.
-
Originally posted by Gank
Thought it was twenty, and your whole train system is electric? And the electrical grid is totally oil free?
No, but there is biodiesel. Costs a hell of a lot, but we do have the vegetable oil for it :p
And NYC is definitely not 20, considering the fact the entire State of New York has about 14-16.
-
ionia23: you imply i use argumentum ad populi (argument is valid from the number of people who agree with me)
No, I base my argument off IDEPENDANT VERIFIABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Real Scientific studies, etc - Implying I would use A.A populi is a grave insult to my intelligence
-
If most people here would politly stop using argumentum ad terrorem... :doubt:
Regarding the isolationism some of you are discussing here, it would be impossible for any country in it's current state to continue functioning normally (except those who may be currently experiencing international embargos). It's economy would simply colapse within a month max.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ionia23: you imply i use argumentum ad populi (argument is valid from the number of people who agree with me)
No, I base my argument off IDEPENDANT VERIFIABLE EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE
Real Scientific studies, etc - Implying I would use A.A populi is a grave insult to my intelligence
and several of those arguments have been negated or thrown into question already, though the push behind them is strong.
And to address your last point, with respect, if-ay uh-thay ooe-shay its-fay :nod:
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
If most people here would politly stop using argumentum ad terrorem... :doubt:
Regarding the isolationism some of you are discussing here, it would be impossible for any country in it's current state to continue functioning normally (except those who may be currently experiencing international embargos). It's economy would simply colapse within a month max.
Oh, I'm not saying that it's a good idea, not by a long shot. And the effects would be pretty grave indeed. I can't even fathom it on a grand scale. But do you think a nation could adjust? I"m of the opinion, sure, but I'm also ignorant of everything that would be involved.
-
Depends on what measures they're willing to undertake. And their grip on their military.
-
19 million 3 years ago, most likely near 20 now
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html
As for the biodeisel thats nice, but wont you have to build new engines? Theres lots of alternative means besides oil, but oil is needed for the construction of these things.
-
There I go back to Stalinism again...dammit...
Good point.
-
Biodiesel runs on anything that uses diesel. And ethanol runs on a good deal of modern cars (the car companies get tax breaks).
-
Originally posted by Gank
19 million 3 years ago, most likely near 20 now
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36000.html
As for the biodeisel thats nice, but wont you have to build new engines? Theres lots of alternative means besides oil, but oil is needed for the construction of these things.
That's the state, not the city. And the population of the state is decreasing, not increasing.
-
So it is. Not really relevant anyways. Biodiesel needs arable land right? How much arable land would be needed to replace 25% of world oil consumption? And how badly is that going to affect food supply in the US? Isolationism would drop the US back to the living standards of at least the 20s, with possibly higher unemployment rates,
-
We have quite a bit of arable land that's being wasted as we speak. To prevent overproduction of crops, the government pays farmers not to farm all their land. And if we weren't exporting any grains, then that land could also go to biodiesel production.
-
exactly
next thing we need to do is eliminate the stupid economically-ineffecient (impossible to self sustain) "family" farm an replace it with corporate farming (not to be confused with factory farming)
-
Family farms are virtually extinct anyway, at least in the plains.
-
Actually, "family farms" have been known to be 4-5 times as efficient as corporate farms. Don't ask me for a link, cause I don't remember where I got that info from.
-
I live on a Family Farm. They would be sustainable if the price of operation wasn't so high.
The cost of seed is outrageous and have you price farm implements lately?
BTW, Kazan, I was specifically challenging your statement that Unemployment was at an all time high. As far as that goes, you're full of crap.
City Folk are always complaining about food quality and price, never once considering how much work goes into the food they buy at the Kroger/Food World/Publix.
You cannot imagine the pain and heartache involved when you have to put something slightly less important off because the tractor needs to be fixed or one of the implements needs to be replaced.
-
my grandfather is a farmer - he makes money because he knows what an ECONOMY OF SIZE is
Your problems with your 'family farm' is because of the economic inefficiency of the family farm - and i feel no pity for you because it's your/your families own decision to try to continue scratching an income out of an economically infeasable system
As for your 'challenge' to my statement about unemployeement - it's LAUGHABLE -- 'REAL' unemployeement is at it's highest level SINCE the great depression
the government numbers of somewhere around 8% are an underestimate - because they're only counting people that are drawing EB and are registered for looking for jobs at govt job centers - it ignores people who are looking for jobs on their own, who have given up until the economy rebounds, etc
'REAL' unemployeement counts all of them, not just what the government counts - our REAL unemployeement numbers are disgustingly high
-
Originally posted by Kazan
the government numbers of somewhere around 8% are an underestimate - because they're only counting people that are drawing EB and are registered for looking for jobs at govt job centers - it ignores people who are looking for jobs on their own, who have given up until the economy rebounds, etc
'REAL' unemployeement counts all of them, not just what the government counts - our REAL unemployeement numbers are disgustingly high
so the governments numbers a wrong and the reality is horable. we don't know quantifiably how much worse, but it's horable horable horable
-
Originally posted by ionia23
I can think of a number of married couples where sexual activity is non-existent (ho ho ho). Does this render a marriage null and void? Boy i'd love to see THAT on Court TV.
Actually, in almost every state in the United States, lack of sexual activity IS grounds for an anullment.
I assume you actually meant "sexual activity is non-existent [later, after a marriage has been consummated]". That won't render a marriage null and void. However, it is grounds for divorce in several states.
You may all go back to your ceaseless bickering now. I would join you, but I'm too tired and bitter.
-
bobboau: actually they do have exact numbers - i just don't know them off the top of my head
-
What that, I hear an echo from a previous time...
"Ignorance is no excuse."
-
i like bannana bread. it tastes soooo goood. do you like bannana bread?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Setekh just ENDORSED GENOCIDE
I'm glad you put that in capitals, because you know, that illustrates the point so much better. ;)
Anyway, I understand why you're so against genocide. The human attempts at it throughout history have been, in a word, atrocious. However, we assume genocide is bad because of the assumption that there are innocents within the mass of people who are being destroyed. But what if there is not a single innocent person within a whole group of people, as I was pointing at before? You still haven't addressed this question.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Again, genocide? Well, we do believe in a justice system. Many Western justice systems (like the current Australian one, which I know well enough to talk about a little) will not inflict the death penalty as a throwback to the Christian foundation of death being a punishment that only God ought to inflict.
Hate to bring this up from way back on page 1, but we do't have the death penalty because it's barbaric and utterly final - you can release and (to a degree) compensate someone whom you wrongly imprison for murder for 50 years. You're royally mucked if you shot him for it.
-
I cannot believe you Setekh, you utterly disgust me - you wholeheartedly support your invisible friend in the sky when he orders the killing of (already born mind you!) children, when he orders the killing of men, women, and children JUST because they''re not israelis
You would have been killed by your god - because you're not of israeli race. You are a total and complete hypocrit, AND you're suppotring genocide. You Disgust me - people like you existing in the fundamentalist movement is exactly why it's going to become a shooting war sooner or later
-
Ionia23: Wake up - do some reading, and you'll see why the world hates the USA. Don't ignore your government's conduct just because you can't see the effects of it yet. They are acting on your behalf - you have responsibility for their actions. They are supposed to be a government "of the people, for the people", as in any democracy. In America, more than anywhere else, the government is becoming more and more removed from the needs of the public, in favour of making ridiculously wealthy people even wealthier.
Originally posted by Setekh:
Anyway, I understand why you're so against genocide. The human attempts at it throughout history have been, in a word, atrocious. However, we assume genocide is bad because of the assumption that there are innocents within the mass of people who are being destroyed. But what if there is not a single innocent person within a whole group of people, as I was pointing at before? You still haven't addressed this question.
Setekh: I'm very surprised to hear that from someone like you. By that logic, no person on the planet should be allowed to live - are you 100% "innocent"? I very much doubt it. I assume genocide is bad because I believe nobody has the right to take the life of another person (unless they themselves are in mortal danger from said person), not because there is the risk of an innocent person being killed.
Kazan: For ****'s sake. Calm down a bit, and stop going ape-****-crazy every time someone says something slightly removed from your viewpoint. I respect all and share many of your sentiments, but it reflects badly on you when you throw the teddy out of the pram every time you see something that you don't agree with 100%. Some people may read it as slightly hypocritical that you claim to be so liberal, yet you display some very bigoted views on certain things, particularly people with strong religious beliefs. I mean, you called Setekh a fundamentalist, I assume drawing comparisons between him and say, Liberator (no offence, Liberator - you're simply the best example we have of a right-wing Christian). That is simply a stupid and inaccurate comparison, as they so patently have very different sets of values and opinions. I'm not condoning what he said, but I think it's something he posted without thinking it through properly, so I'll question it rather than condemning him for it without any further explanation. Just tone it down a bit, and be a bit more tolerant of other people's beliefs, OK?
-
pyro-maniac: i go "ape-****-crazy" as you put it when people put forward completely irrational viewpoints and assert them as the "ONE TRUTH!" and try and force it on the world
IF someone disagrees with me and can honestly back up their position without appealing to some religious document or other stupid bull**** then they get treated like a rational human being.
"bigoted" requires that it be prejudice (pre-judgement) - if i behementy oppose something it's out of having analyzed it.
Religious beliefs are totally and completely irrational. You should NEVER make decisions about factuality irrationally. Religion is the enemy of free thinking, the enemy of progress. Sure it served a purpose right until around 1600s when we started getting real science. Now it's just the refuge of those who are brainwashed into it by their parents and are unable to effectively metacognate, and those who are but choose the emotionally appealing one over the honest one.
Setekh supports genocide based upon the bible! If that isn't an example of "inerrant and literal interpretation" of the bible then nothing else is! Even amoung fundamentalists you get the hyper-extreme (liberator) and the moderately-extreme, and the less-extreme (setekh... though supporting ****ing genocide makes me want to put him right with libby)
He posted his support for genocide _TWICE_
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Ionia23: Wake up - do some reading, and you'll see why the world hates the USA. Don't ignore your government's conduct just because you can't see the effects of it yet. They are acting on your behalf - you have responsibility for their actions. They are supposed to be a government "of the people, for the people", as in any democracy. In America, more than anywhere else, the government is becoming more and more removed from the needs of the public, in favour of making ridiculously wealthy people even wealthier.
Well, if you based world opinion on the United States based on what you read on salon.com and in Al-Jazeera, then I can see how you would come to that conclusion.
However, to use a blanket statement like "the whole world hates the USA", is, well, grossly exaggerated.
Thank you for the reading suggestion.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
pyro-maniac: i go "ape-****-crazy" as you put it when people put forward completely irrational viewpoints and assert them as the "ONE TRUTH!" and try and force it on the world
IF someone disagrees with me and can honestly back up their position without appealing to some religious document or other stupid bull**** then they get treated like a rational human being.
"bigoted" requires that it be prejudice (pre-judgement) - if i behementy oppose something it's out of having analyzed it.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. :)
Religious beliefs are totally and completely irrational. You should NEVER make decisions about factuality irrationally. Religion is the enemy of free thinking, the enemy of progress. Sure it served a purpose right until around 1600s when we started getting real science. Now it's just the refuge of those who are brainwashed into it by their parents and are unable to effectively metacognate, and those who are but choose the emotionally appealing one over the honest one.
I don't agree with that all the way. Yeah, a lot of religion is daft, and I deplore the way it's used to influence people, but it can also be a good thing. It can give people a focus for their lives, to better themselves or to help them through a bad time in their lives. I know someone whose faith was the only thing that held her together after a horrible car crash killed two people in her immediate family. Without it, she would probably have commited suicide. It gave her the means to get over the accident and get on with her life. And I can only see that as a good thing.
Setekh supports genocide based upon the bible! If that isn't an example of "inerrant and literal interpretation" of the bible then nothing else is! Even amoung fundamentalists you get the hyper-extreme (liberator) and the moderately-extreme, and the less-extreme (setekh... though supporting ****ing genocide makes me want to put him right with libby)
I'm not sure about that. I assume the bit of the Bible referred to is the Sodom and Gomorrah episode, in which, as I understand it, God destroys the cities because the inhabitants have become corrupted beyond hope. People who commit crimes must face justice and pay the price for what they have done, and God decides that the price is death (a sentence only he can pass, as Setekh says). Because everyone in S & G is guilty, this means they all face the death penalty, hence the fire and brimstone and "genocide". That is the reason for it - the capital offences commited by a large number of people in the same place, not the destruction of the Jews/Christians/whatever on the whim of a madman. If a thousand people in, say, Texas, went out and shot someone tomorrow, were tried, convicted and sentenced to death by the State, would that be genocide?
I must say I'm dead against capital punishment (same reasons as Black Wolf above), but this is a scenario that could happen (though extremely unlikely). Regardless of whether you support the death penalty or not, would the Texas government then be guilty of crimes against humanity, given that they were simply dispensing justice on criminals?
He posted his support for genocide _TWICE_
True. This is why I questioned it in my previous post. I'm witholding judgement until he replies. :)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
pyro-maniac: i go "ape-****-crazy" as you put it when people put forward completely irrational viewpoints and assert them as the "ONE TRUTH!" and try and force it on the world
IF someone disagrees with me and can honestly back up their position without appealing to some religious document or other stupid bull**** then they get treated like a rational human being.
"bigoted" requires that it be prejudice (pre-judgement) - if i behementy oppose something it's out of having analyzed it.
Religious beliefs are totally and completely irrational. You should NEVER make decisions about factuality irrationally. Religion is the enemy of free thinking, the enemy of progress. Sure it served a purpose right until around 1600s when we started getting real science. Now it's just the refuge of those who are brainwashed into it by their parents and are unable to effectively metacognate, and those who are but choose the emotionally appealing one over the honest one.
Setekh supports genocide based upon the bible! If that isn't an example of "inerrant and literal interpretation" of the bible then nothing else is! Even amoung fundamentalists you get the hyper-extreme (liberator) and the moderately-extreme, and the less-extreme (setekh... though supporting ****ing genocide makes me want to put him right with libby)
He posted his support for genocide _TWICE_
I thought Setekh was using the bible for historical reference, nothing more than that. I back his position too.
Is slaughtering all of your enemies truly genocide, or merely thorough?
-
Slaughtering and entire civiliation because they don't agree with your theology is genocide
Pyro: those positive effects of religion can be found without religion
-
Originally posted by ionia23:Well, if you based world opinion on the United States based on what you read on salon.com and in Al-Jazeera, then I can see how you would come to that conclusion.
However, to use a blanket statement like "the whole world hates the USA", is, well, grossly exaggerated.
Thank you for the reading suggestion.
OK, it was a generalisation. Sorry. :)
As for reading, good on yer. I'd offer one bit of advice - try to read over the whole spectrum of politics - if you limit yourself to left- or right-wing writers, you'll get a horribly distorted picture. :)
-
it's hard to tolerate some of hte right-wingers though... accusing people of being traitors for having a different opinion... for thinking that religion has no business in our government, etc
-
Absolutely. There are some downright dangerous opinions flying about.
Originally posted by Kazan
Pyro: those positive effects of religion can be found without religion
True. It's not always that easy, though. By their nature, people don't want the whole truth. By the whole truth, I mean that we have no special purpose in this life other than to breed, that we are nothing more than over-evolved apes, that nothing we do matters in the grand scheme of things, and that we all die alone.
It's not nice. If you exposed people to that, I mean really showed them reality, stripped away all the protective layers that society and their individual beliefs and instincts give them, it'd destroy them. Same for me, same for you. The only thing that keeps anyone going above the animal instinct to reproduce is that they have a purpose, that they can achieve something with the time they have and that there is a goal to be reached at the end of it. That, I think, is the great gift and the terrible curse of conciousness, and religion can be the means for people to deal with it.
And on that happy note, I think I'll stop. :D
-
pryo-maniac: i know that truth
you are only as important as you make yourself - ie you are only important if you do some lasting good for the species.
Religion is a very poor means of dealing, like almost every other coping mechanism. They need to get some backbone, act like a mature human being and face reality
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
I'm not sure about that. I assume the bit of the Bible referred to is the Sodom and Gomorrah episode, in which, as I understand it, God destroys the cities because the inhabitants have become corrupted beyond hope. People who commit crimes must face justice and pay the price for what they have done, and God decides that the price is death (a sentence only he can pass, as Setekh says).
The old testaments one big long book of ethnic cleansing.
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=Numbers+21%3A1-3&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=Deuteronomy+2%3A26-36&x=12&y=14
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=Numbers+21%3A32&x=11&y=9
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=Deuteronomy+3%3A1-11&x=15&y=11
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV&passage=Numbers+31%3A3-19&x=16&y=7
Also theres a whole lot of stuff in Joshua about massacaring the caanites. Bascically these people were evil so it was ok to kill them and take their land and possessions. Who says they're evil? The Israelites god. I used to be a christian till I actually read the bible, and realised the whole thing was just an excuse for murder and theft.
-
Gank: :D
-
It'd be ok if poor little Israel wasnt trying to do the exact same thing today, with there right wing born again christian wankers egging them on with the hope of sending us all back to the stone age. The worlds ****ed.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Religion is a very poor means of dealing, like almost every other coping mechanism. They need to get some backbone, act like a mature human being and face reality
Is it though? Religion, persay, spirituality can be a very effective pillar of strength for people. Whether or not you agree with their principles, a full-blown spiritual fanatic has the strength of 10 who don't believe in anything. Anyone catch the "Dune" reference here?
Religion in itself is neither good nor evil, it's the application that makes the determination.
You can look upon the tales of the Bible as "The Word", or you can look upon it a a history of the Jews and the Christians intermingled with some pretty good guides to live by.
Mind you, I'm just talking about the bible here, not every spirtiual text ever written...
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
As for reading, good on yer. I'd offer one bit of advice - try to read over the whole spectrum of politics - if you limit yourself to left- or right-wing writers, you'll get a horribly distorted picture. :)
Contrary to popular belief, my political views are a construct of both the left and right, mixed with my own choices.
-
Religion/supernatural beliefs/spirituality - all the same thing, the face of irrationality
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Religion/supernatural beliefs/spirituality - all the same thing, the face of irrationality
The face of irrationality....mmmkay, I get it.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
pryo-maniac: i know that truth
Yeah. Sucks, doesn't it? :D
you are only as important as you make yourself - ie you are only important if you do some lasting good for the species.
Absolutely. That's my goal. If I didn't have that, I might as well jump off a bridge.
Religion is a very poor means of dealing, like almost every other coping mechanism. They need to get some backbone, act like a mature human being and face reality
I'm inclined to agree, but most people aren't mentally strong enough to do that. People have been told for thousands of years that they have a pre-destined purpose, that they should aim to get to heaven/paradise/whatever, and it's practically impossible to reverse a belief system that has been around pretty much since the dawn of civilisation. It's so deeply ingrained it'll take centuries to change it. We need to change people's ideals from "I will lead a good life so that I can go to heaven when I die" to "I will lead a good life so that those who come after me may also lead good lives". That is the major problem - the shift away from basically selfish motivation to a basically un-selfish aim.
As for irrationality, people are generally irrational beings. Otherwise we'd just be robots. ;)
Gank: Reading the Bible is top of my list of things to do at the moment, after i get my exams out of the way (about 6 weeks till they're over). Also the Qu'ran and some Asian scripture. I'll have to get back to you on that. :)
ionia: Excellent. Making your own choices is the best way to go. Just be careful when reading political stuff, 'cos the chances are the writer has a hefty bias one way or the other. :D
-
pyro: i can deal with it.. it doesn't really bother me at all
Irrationality _does_ have it's place, ie emotion is appropraite at times - but not when determing 'matters of factuality'
-
Just remember that every person on this planet do have an irrational side.
Denying that would be foolishness - a blind spot in your self-knowledge.
It's just the question of whether to make an effort to actively manage that part, or to let it roam freely.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
pyro: i can deal with it.. it doesn't really bother me at all
Irrationality _does_ have it's place, ie emotion is appropraite at times - but not when determing 'matters of factuality'
Heheh - that's a whole 'nother debate right there.... :D
That's cool that you don't mind - it's just that most people probably would mind, and couldn't cope with it. It's the "not minding" that will let people use their potential to the fullest. That's the really tricky part.
-
Just because God says it's right doesn't mean it's right.
To quote:
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Who's to say God is right in the first place? He answers to no-one so his beliefs are based simply on his random choosing.
Think of it this way: In 1939, in Germany, Hitler was God. He said the Jews deserved to die, so the Jews (any many other ethnic and social groups BTW) died. He said conquering Poland was a good idea, so they conquered Poland and it went great. Then someone came along who Hitler DID answer to and all of a sudden everything he believed in was wrong.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
you are only as important as you make yourself - ie you are only important if you do some lasting good for the species.
Uh, no.
Aside from the fact that wiping out the entire population of the Earth would be bad and still important, you're totally ignoring the butterfly effect.
I may not wipe out a continent, but my actions will lead to countless others which will be both amazingly good and terrifyingly bad.
Staying alive is the only really important thing any being can do.
-
SIGNIFICANTLY important
-
You read what I posted, right?
-
A single stone can change the future... but to do so it must exist.
-
an0n: yes... i know what you mean.. but i was ignoring mass murderers and such for the sake that isn't the kind of importance you want to have
-
So? Does the fact that it's undesirable mean it's somehow less relevant?
-
to the conversation, YES
-
So does that opinion apply to the act of genocide then?
-
*sighs* we weren't talking about negative thinks as valid options of how to make yourself important
yes they make you important, but not in the good way so we weren't dealing with them in the conversastion
give it a rest
-
to take this back abit, how soon do you reckon a shooting war will begin between christian and muslim fundementalists?
-
A week, if I can get this damn detonator working.
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
to take this back abit, how soon do you reckon a shooting war will begin between christian and muslim fundementalists?
9/13/2001 in Phoenix, Arizona. Of course, the person killed wasn't Muslim, but Sikh.
-
Unfortunately, Sikhs look more like the stereotypical Muslims than actual Muslims do
It really pisses me off that i have to stay after on a friggin FRIDAY AFTERNOON!! oh, SAT's Tomorrow
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
to take this back abit, how soon do you reckon a shooting war will begin between christian and muslim fundementalists?
Havent been paying attention this last 3 years have you?
-
For the sake of clarity, Setekh was not supporting genocide. If you read what he said, he argues that a divinely given death penalty was presecribed to a set of individuals, and that the sum total of all those individuals so happened to contain all the members of a given group.
In other words, all these individual Canaanites were killed not because they were Canaanites, but because each individual was found deserving of death. Genocide kills people becase they belong to a certain people group. Therefore, we are talking about a mass execution, not a genocide.
Now, whether a mass execution is justifiable or not is another matter, but let'd do be clear: Setekh is supporting the divine right to order mass executions, not genocide.
-
Uh, no. He's supporting genocide.......and xenocide for that matter.
If I were to kill all Jews because they were Jewish, would that not be because I had deemed them to be deserving of death?
Genocide is the extermination of a genotype, but the broader application which is the one used by the UN is the systematic erradication of a large number of people based on a political or religious belief, geographical location or genetic makeup.
God committed genocide. Setekh supports that action. Therefore Setekh supports genocide.
-
And that's any better, Sesq?
God loves you, honest, and wants you to be good of your own free will. Of course, if you're bad, well, be thou smote. Go free will!
Whatever. Mass executions, genocide, what's the difference? Besides, unless someone can produce the rapsheets for each and every Canaanite and show exactly where the capital offense in his life was, it wasn't justified. If even innocent was slain, the whole act is morally indefensible.
This is the sort of claptrap that drives me away from organized religion.
-
Originally posted by an0n
Uh, no. He's supporting genocide.......and xenocide for that matter.
If I were to kill all Jews because they were Jewish, would that not be because I had deemed them to be deserving of death?
Genocide is the extermination of a genotype, but the broader application which is the one used by the UN is the systematic erradication of a large number of people based on a political or religious belief, geographical location or genetic makeup.
God committed genocide. Setekh supports that action. Therefore Setekh supports genocide.
But they aren't being killed because they are Canaanites. They are being killed because their sins apparently deserve it. If some of them were not found deserving of death, they wouldn't have been. (Cf. the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, where God is willing to spare the city if even an arbitrarily small number of people can be found in it, and when not even a handful can be found, he removes all that should be spared before striking.) So no one is trying to kill off people groups, they are trying to kill off sinners. That people groups are decimated along the way is a side effect.
As I said, whether that is any better is another question, but let's at least be clear before we start charging Setekh with things.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
And that's any better, Sesq?
God loves you, honest, and wants you to be good of your own free will. Of course, if you're bad, well, be thou smote. Go free will!
Whatever. Mass executions, genocide, what's the difference? Besides, unless someone can produce the rapsheets for each and every Canaanite and show exactly where the capital offense in his life was, it wasn't justified. If even innocent was slain, the whole act is morally indefensible.
This is the sort of claptrap that drives me away from organized religion.
I was not commenting on whether it was any better or not, just being clear on the difference since people were falsely charging Setekh.
Incidentally, when it says they killed everybody, the language is hyperbolic. Not everyone was killed, just a good number. As the text itself says later, plenty of Canaanites stayed around for a long, long time.
Now, if you want me to comment on whether the execution of multiple Canaanites is justifiable, I can tell you my thoughts.
-
Sesq: WHY they were killed doesn't make it any less genocide. Furthermore for those of us that sbuscribe to reality [formal logic and science] we know how to analize writing and know that what you're reading in that book is just post facto rationalization for genocide commited by the invading and conquering army in a war of agression over territory
-
Yes it does. If the reason for killing people is that they are part of a people group, then the act of killing is a genocide. If it is not, it is not. Setekh was arguing that the motivation for killing these people was their actions, not their ethicity. If that is the case, then it is not a genocide.
Given that Setekh is supporting this action on the basis described above, it cannot be said that he supports genocide, but that he does support the execution of large numbers of individuals in one swoop.
-
I take your meaning, Sesq. So, not genocide, merely mass-murder.
-
Perhaps murder, perhaps not. That depends on whether the killing was justified or not.
-
That comes down, I'm afraid, to a matter of opinion--and one for which the accused is rather unwilling to show up in person to testify.
Instead, all we get is a dusty tome that is, rather conveniently, not admissible in court.
-
Fair enough. But if instead you want to put the writers of the tome on trial, they have left us with their testimony on the issue. Reading it does help understand the situation a little better, even if we can't hear the other sides counterargument.
-
That would be hearsay, strictly speaking. Besides, in many cases, a clear conflict of interest can be shown, which would impeach the witnesses in question.
Reading the Bible as a means of understanding history is rather like watching Fox News to understand current events. Sure, in both cases, we get reports of what's going on, but in neither case do we get an unbiased, rigorously factual accouting of events. The events are always filtered through the agenda of the reporters at hand. Luckily, with Fox News, we have other sources of facts to which we can compare and contrast their reporting of events. We cannot say the same of the Bible.
The picture becomes even more muddled, when once considers the provenance of the dusty tome in question. The decisions in the second century that led to the formation of the Canon are hardly above question, even assuming that nothing in the text changed from the original formulation until then, and that nothing changed from the formation of the Canon until now.
At best, we're dealing with a hundred and fifty generations of hearsay.
-
Why are people saying violence in the bible is justification for christians wanton destruction for muslims? It is clear to any bible student that even though God used his wrath to destroy people he also promised to never do so again with his own hand.
The smart deity he is, knowing we are free as human beings, we ourselves may, and will bring about our own destruction. Therefore his decision was not entirely of guilt for killing people, but because he knew we would destroy ourselves anyways.
And those who stand behind religion to destroy are in fact doing God's will, which is the destruction of the earth to prove to us once and for all we cannot be self governed.
I cant prove any of this, but we can wait and see LOL.
That report linked is not surprising, it all sounds like Skulls & bones, illuminati type stuff anyways and any man with half a brain knows that politics are a game you can win and lose, and most times the bad guys end up winning. This is why its not surprising the US is following a sect order rather then their own peoples.
-
If it was mass murder, who would you drag into court mik? God?
God, as Creator, reserves the right to eliminate those of his creation that don't at least as a general rule do what he says. The group in question was reveling in their sin, which is equivalent to killing a random person in front of a bunch of police.
-
liberator: "reveling in their sin" acorrding to bias sources, not to mention the whole fact that they're breaking the rules of an imaginary friend that you all have since it's emotionally appealing
-
Originally posted by mikhael
That would be hearsay, strictly speaking. Besides, in many cases, a clear conflict of interest can be shown, which would impeach the witnesses in question.
Reading the Bible as a means of understanding history is rather like watching Fox News to understand current events. Sure, in both cases, we get reports of what's going on, but in neither case do we get an unbiased, rigorously factual accouting of events. The events are always filtered through the agenda of the reporters at hand. Luckily, with Fox News, we have other sources of facts to which we can compare and contrast their reporting of events. We cannot say the same of the Bible.
The picture becomes even more muddled, when once considers the provenance of the dusty tome in question. The decisions in the second century that led to the formation of the Canon are hardly above question, even assuming that nothing in the text changed from the original formulation until then, and that nothing changed from the formation of the Canon until now.
At best, we're dealing with a hundred and fifty generations of hearsay.
You overstate your position, mikhael. Even the most suspicious stance towards the Bible cannot reasonably dismiss it as a witness to history. Frankly, we accept the historical value of scores of other ancient documents with religious content without difficulty, so why should the Bible be especially singled out as untrustworthy? If the biblical text says in multiple passages in multiple books that the Canaanites made it their regular religious practice to burn their babies alive as sacrifices to their gods, it is difficult to see how one could dismiss that evidence out of hand so easily while accepting Herodotus' history as substantially true without any more corroborating evidence.
Moreover, the Bible shows a remarkable willingness to paint its supposed heroes in a bad light when they deserve it. Both David and Solomon are shown with all their faults, despite the status and esteem their memory had in the minds of the people. That's a far cry from the records one finds in Assyrian or Egyptian or Hittite annals.
Furthermore, I might point out some serious inconsistency in your approach. It looks to me like you are willing to accept the biblical evidence when it suits you, and disregard it when it doesn't. That the Israelites killed many Canaanites you'll accept on no one's testimonty but the Israelites, but their testimony that the Canaanites regularly, universally, and systematically practiced infanticide is dismissed. What basis do you have for picking and choosing? Do the Israelites report history, or not?
Now having said all that, I'll point out that there actually is corroborating evidence that the Canaanites sacrificed their babies in this way. Heaps of babies bones have been found near sacrifice sites, apparently burned.
But returning to the case in point, the killing of the Canaanites comes down to one issue so far as the Bible is concerned: they sacrificed their babies to their gods. This quick search (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=&search=pass+through+the+fire&version=NIV&language=english&optional.x=11&optional.y=8) shows just some of the references made to it. Burning babies alive is, so far as God is concerned, such a terrible thing as to be worthy of capital punishment, and is the underlying reason for 1) why he decided to have the Canaanites executed and the survivors dispossessed of their land, and 2) why he later decided that the Israelites who emulated the practices of surviving Canaanites would similarly be killed and the survivours dragged off into exile.
Now, what do we do with baby killers today? Where captial punishment exists, we execute them. Where it does not, we lock them up with no chance of parole. We kill them and do the modern equivalent of dispossessing them of their land. So, was God's action against the Canaanites murder or execution?
Oh, and what do you find questionable in the process of canon selection? I've heard you mention it before, so what exactly is it you have issue with?
-
Sesq: WITNESS TO doesn't mean it contains an unbiased account. It is very clear it's account is biased and 'legendized'. Yes we accept it and other religious documents but we don't accept them without figuring on bias and looking for correlation from non-bias or differnt-bias. If the Canaanites did sacrifice babies that is deplorable, but your own god demanded that of a certain person and barely stayed his hand - furthermore deplorable acts, 'sin', or anything else you can dream if is NOT a justification for genocide.
Just because the 'modern' bible [what an oxymoron] chooses to show the weaknesses of a few characters doesn't remove bias from it.
"It looks to me like you are willing to accept the biblical evidence when it suites you, and disregard it when it doesn't" POT CALLING KETTLE - furthermore it is much more likely that you don't understand how he's drawing the difference between bias parts, unbiased parts - and extracting reliable data from the biased parts. It's all simple English 104/105 skills in college though, if you remember them.
"That you'll accept the Israelites killed many Canaanites" - no, you're misunderstanding something - whether it happened or not, it is ordered in your book and shown as a good thing - which is a major mark against you, your god, and your entire religion - AND you supporting it is supporting genocide. -- Whether it actually happened or not IS IRREVELANT to the current discussion. Please take a class on rhetoric or something.
Whether or not their practiced infanticde that is no justification for genocide
Whether or not you think it's just since your supposedly-peace-loving yet totally genocidal maniac god says it's just in a book written by human beings, the human beings that commited the genocide - doesn't make it any less genocide.
Capital punishment exists for INDIVIDUALS - a large number of individuals do this they are tried SEPERATELY, and more often than not are sent to jail for life or even more likely sent to a mental health institution - not entire nationalities/ethnic groups killed because some of their members commit it.
Stop trying to rationalize your way out of justifing genocide - there is no logical argument you can make WITHOUT FALLACY that says you're not justifing genocide
-
Geez..
World is really ****ed up :sigh:
what we are leaving to next generation A destroyed world? it's really sad but I believe more than ever it's going to be true
if we don't protect our planet everything will be gone
-
Kazan, you're not really listening. As mikhael and I already discussed, it isn't a genocide unless one is killing people based on their ethnicity. If you are killing them because they burn babies alive, it isn't genocide. That a certain people group's members are also members of the set of people engaging in such practices and therefore targeted for execution is circumstantial. This addresses most of the content of your post.
"'Modern' Bible"? The earliest manuscripts for the New Testament we have date from the second century AD, and the earliest we have for the Old Testament date from the second century BC to the first AD. Strange use of the term modern...
I am well aware of bias. I am also aware that the reader has bias along with the writer. What I am getting at is that mikhael seemed to be letting his own bias get too much in the way when dealing with the text. It was surely an inadvertent error (we all do it), and it is a service to one another when we call each other on it.
Exactly how am I a pot calling the kettle black? If there is something in the text I am overlooking, please show it to me.
For you it is irrelevant whether the Canaanites were killed or not, but in my discussion with mik he seemed to think that they really were. But if you are unconcerned with the actual history, Kazan, then I have to ask you whether you want to have your cake or eat it. Is our concern is with the text and the story it tells, or are we going to concern ourselves with what "really" happened?
If the concern is with what the text says, then we need to understand the text the way it presents itself. And it presents itself as justifying the execution of baby killers.
If the concern is with what "really happened," then we are right back in the world of history that you claim is irrelevant. To say that such-and-such in the text is really a post facto rationalisation is to start dealing with the history again.
Of course capital punishment is for individuals. And that is what this is. The whole lot of them did take part in this sacrifice. Such rituals were communal in the ancient world. In 21st century Western civilisation we make religion a private thing. In the ancient world its was not. Everyone who was proscribed would indeed have participated. Thus it is that great number of individuals can all be found guilty. Moreover, when a group of people all participate in a crime, they are very often tried corporately even in our justice system.
Now, if you want to deal with what the text says, rather than history, you need to deal with a text in which God is considered a reality (so no appeals to God's not being real). In this text, God doesn't need to conduct trials because he knows the truth already. So he is in a position to pass sentence on whoever he sees fit. If a large number of people are all guilty, and all given the same sentence, it only makes sense to communicate that sentence all at once. In other words, what we have here in the story the text tells is God saying "This group of baby killers is to be executed for their evil deeds." That is what the text is saying. It isn't a justification for genocide, but a condemnation of infanticide.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
But they aren't being killed because they are Canaanites. They are being killed because their sins apparently deserve it. If some of them were not found deserving of death, they wouldn't have been. (Cf. the Sodom and Gomorrah incident, where God is willing to spare the city if even an arbitrarily small number of people can be found in it, and when not even a handful can be found, he removes all that should be spared before striking.) So no one is trying to kill off people groups, they are trying to kill off sinners. That people groups are decimated along the way is a side effect.
So what you're saying is that there were no innocent children or babies in either city? Either you're claiming that the children were also sodemites or that they had burnt them all already.
-
Kara, I don't think any of the people in those cities was innocent. Before you jump on me, though, make sure you define innocence. If God does exist and is greater than us, he will surely have a greater and higher definition of innocence than we do or ever have.
Originally posted by pyro-manic
Setekh: I'm very surprised to hear that from someone like you. By that logic, no person on the planet should be allowed to live - are you 100% "innocent"? I very much doubt it. I assume genocide is bad because I believe nobody has the right to take the life of another person (unless they themselves are in mortal danger from said person), not because there is the risk of an innocent person being killed.
Mmmm, you raise an interesting point. And that's what I've been trying to say all along. No, absolutely not, I don't count myself as deserving of life. No Christian does; that is a part of the teaching of grace, which has no place in any other religion.
And yes, Sesq has said in other words what I meant. I did think it would be worth poking you in the eye with that thought, though. There is a heavy undercurrent of anthropomorphism going here, which I think ought to be inspected more closely (for instance, the thought about absolute power and its corrupting power among humans). Keep thinking, folks.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Kazan, you're not really listening.
There is a difference between "not listening" and "not accepting your argument" LEARN IT
As mikhael and I already discussed, it isn't a genocide unless one is killing people based on their ethnicity.
WRONG
Dictionary
genocide n.
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
Doesn't say anything about _why_ just the act of killing a racial/cultural group is genocide. This is the definition you're going to find everyone in academia using to my knowledge
If you are killing them because they burn babies alive, it isn't genocide.
Wrong, it's still genocide. Nor do I believe your claim that they did so. I find that just setting up post facto excuses
That a certain people group's members are also members of the set of people engaging in such practices and therefore targeted for execution is circumstantial.
There is a thing called a TRIAL, but I forget the human race was too primative at the time (says a lot for the people who wrote your book). The code of Harrumbi wa just cerated at that time (And heavily influence the ten commandsment).
This addresses most of the content of your post.
Addresses... maybe
"'Modern' Bible"? The earliest manuscripts for the New Testament we have date from the second century AD, and the earliest we have for the Old Testament date from the second century BC to the first AD. Strange use of the term modern...
The earliests payruses for the NT are in the THIRD century - and there are large gaps in the bible and glaring misognist meddling.
It has sense been translated numerous times, always with intentional alterations. When I said "modern" i was refering to modern translations which are really translations of translations of translations of translations - all translated by people with agendas
I am well aware of bias. I am also aware that the reader has bias along with the writer.
I have read the bible cover to cover - several translations. IT's all a load of lengendized historical fiction written by a bunch of people who didn't understand the world around them so they came up with a god to explain it - humans have been doing that for thousands of yeras. The problem is now we can explain what was once unexplainable, and that which isn't yet explained some of us have reached the emntal maturity to accept that it isn't explain yet but we will find the explaination.
I What I am getting at is that mikhael seemed to be letting his own bias get too much in the way when dealing with the text. It was surely an inadvertent error (we all do it), and it is a service to one another when we call each other on it.
However, be careful before accusing people of bias unless you can explain why they would have one.
You have a pro-bais favor because you being in your invisible friend in the sky since it';s emotionally appealing to you
Exactly how am I a pot calling the kettle black? If there is something in the text I am overlooking, please show it to me.
Because I can say with 100% certainty and without being stereotyping that everyone who believes in teh bible picks and chooses which verses to believe, for one it contradicts itself in many places - for two that's human nature that is only overcome through a sense of intellectual integrity (which is requisit lacking in relation to the bible to believe it - compartmentalization allows someone who otherwise has it to loose it in relation to the bible)
For you it is irrelevant whether the Canaanites were killed or not, but in my discussion with mik he seemed to think that they really were.
I don't believe your justificatios until i find indpendant historical documents predating the bible and predating the destruction of Canaan documenting their atrocities - then I'll halfway believe you - however killing an entire group of people for their religious beliefs is not justified.
But if you are unconcerned with the actual history, Kazan, then I have to ask you whether you want to have your cake or eat it.
I am concerned with the actual history - however for the sake of this argument the actual history is irrevelant - you are supporting and trying to justify genocide with a post facto rationalization and I'm not going to let you get away with it - it smells to high hell of BULLL****
Is our concern is with the text and the story it tells, or are we going to concern ourselves with what "really" happened?
Our concern in this argumenmt is you supporting genocide because your imaginary friend does
If the concern is with what the text says, then we need to understand the text the way it presents itself. And it presents itself as justifying the execution of baby killers.
It does indeed present itself as justified in killing an entire ethnic group - however it doesn't mean it is justified and it doesn't mean it isn't genocide. Of course the book written by the victors are going to try and justify they're actions
If the concern is with what "really happened," then we are right back in the world of history that you claim is irrelevant. To say that such-and-such in the text is really a post facto rationalisation is to start dealing with the history again.
Until you show me independant evidence predating the bible that they practiced human sacrifice - of their children especially - then I'm going to disbelieve your documents claims because it has a vested interested in demonizing the victims of said genocide.
If they really were "baby killers" as you want to put it in such an emotinoally provacative manner to try and emotionally blackmail us - then it changes little. It changes from being a post facto rationalization to being an excuse.
Of course capital punishment is for individuals. And that is what this is.
Killing an entire ethnic group that supposedly practices something YOUR religion finds reprehensible (and so do I) but their religion demanded - just yet another of the thousands of religious wars throughout the history of this planet. This one ended in genocide.
The whole lot of them did take part in this sacrifice.
You have no evidence to support this claim
Such rituals were communal in the ancient world.
In some cultures/religions. You conviently ignored my point about your imaginary friend in the sky demanding Job kill his son (only to stay his hand at the last minute - however that is just saying "I want you to be willing to kill your child for me if you have to!") INFACT the bible in multiple places advocates killing of children. In one place it not only ADVOCATES it - it has the "angel of death" doing it. (Don't try to justify it as being pharo's decry - your imaginary sky friend still did it)
In 21st century Western civilisation we make religion a private thing.
Wem make it an obsolete thing.
However in 21st century Western civilization YOU do not make religion a private thing. There is a very large christian fundamentalist movement trying to rip up the constitution and establish a theocracy - this is no conspiracy theory - this is directly out of the mouths of the leaders of the movement and is directly correlated by the actinos of the members of the organizations.
If I have to defend my freedom to think freely, speak freely, etc with the gun I will do so with utmost contempt for being forced into that position - but I will do so devistatingly.
Your side has already started the war, it just isn't a shooting war yet but your side is preparing. My side is late to prepare however the fundamnetalists should beware that we're in posession of the best scientists, and tactitions. I will laugh at, and the fundamentalists will rue the day, that they make it a shooting war.
In the ancient world its was not. Everyone who was proscribed would indeed have participated. Thus it is that great number of individuals can all be found guilty. Moreover, when a group of people all participate in a crime, they are very often tried corporately even in our justice system.
'
Show me evidence
Now, if you want to deal with what the text says, rather than history, you need to deal with a text in which God is considered a reality (so no appeals to God's not being real).
No really your THINK - you act like I don't. What ever the reasons for you supporting genocide IT'S STILL GENOCIDE. I don't give a rats if your god believesa it - that is unacceptable behavior. IT is made even worse by the fact that you're simply believing in something emotionally appealing that has no semblance of being real, no REAL evidence (you people like calling things which are absolutely not evidence 'evidence for god'), no logic [without logical fallacy]
In this text, God doesn't need to conduct trials because he knows the truth already.
However YOU are not god, the people who killed the Canaanites are NOT GOD - lots of people claim to know gods word. This is boviously impossible when you a) rationally approach whether god exists and b) lots of people claiming they have gods word contradict e/o on a regular basis
So he is in a position to pass sentence on whoever he sees fit. If a large number of people are all guilty, and all given the same sentence, it only makes sense to communicate that sentence all at once.
post facto rationalization by the victors
n other words, what we have here in the story the text tells is God saying "This group of baby killers is to be executed for their evil deeds." That is what the text is saying. It isn't a justification for genocide, but a condemnation of infanticide.
It's still genocide none the less. And furthermore to the eyes of those of us who have matured enough to be beyond gods (And don't take that as an intetional insult - psychologically, and sociologically speaking those who reach post-conventional morality and value real knowledge are psychologically and sociologically more mature than those who believe in emotionally appealing accounts of reality and in conventional morality, even worse quite often theists are all for pre-conventional morality)
I see the logical path for it to be justified in your eyes - however I call you person willing to commit crimes against humanity. You are rephrensible if not only for your support of genocide but yout casting aside real knowledge and intellecutal integrity in favor of the irrational and emotionally appealing take on reality.
When someone bases their view of reality in irrationality I shouldn't expect much of them. However I do expect them to metacognate and realize they're worldview is nothing but a load of bull and change it.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
So what you're saying is that there were no innocent children or babies in either city? Either you're claiming that the children were also sodemites or that they had burnt them all already.
I overlooked this - I would like Sesq to rationalize killing of the children when he was just condemning that practice
SESQ=HYPOCRIT!
-
Kazan, you accuse the Right of wanting to tear up the Constitution and establish a Theocracy. The way I see you and yours want to burn the churches/synagogues/mosques/temples and establish an Atheist Communist/Socialist enviroment complete with Thought Police.
Also, God doesn't have to make a trial and produce evidence. He is Omnicient(all knowing), Omnipresent(everywhere, all at once) and Omnipotent(all-powerful). This translates to the following:
1. His knowledge, morality, and Ethics are Perfect
2. He sees everything you have done, are doing right now, and will do in the future.
God did not have to try the people of Soddom and Gamorrah. He was intimately aware of they're guilt.
Setekh is right about something else, you are anthropomorphizing God. God is not human or mortal and you shouldn't ascribe human motivations to his actions.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Setekh is right about something else, you are anthropomorphizing God. God is not human or mortal and you shouldn't ascribe human motivations to his actions.
Then what are you assuming "God made man in his image" (or something like that) means? Something must be... er... similar.
Kara made a nice "paradox" about the whole thing. If you kill the "criminals" aren't you doing what they did in the first place?
-
He may look like us, but His motivations and mentality are not. He could swat us as easily as we swat a single ant on the kitchen counter.
What you forget is He made the laws originally, any idea that goes against human nature are Divinely inspired.
-
Let me make something clear then...
anthropomorph = anthropo (human or man) + morph (shape or form)
On the second part, do you know what is human nature? So for example, sodomites were divinely inspired... interesting...
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Kazan, you accuse the Right of wanting to tear up the Constitution and establish a Theocracy. The way I see you and yours want to burn the churches/synagogues/mosques/temples and establish an Atheist Communist/Socialist enviroment complete with Thought Police.
I never advocated that and I never would, you insult me gravely. I do promote people actually using their brains though. There is a difference between society demanding people use their brains and government demanding you think a certain way
I want the church to die of it's own dead weight and intellectual vacuousity. The government of the united states is already supposed to be a purely secular entity. The founding fathers set it up that way with clear intent from their writings and the constitution itself.
Government has no business in religion, and religion has no business in government. It degrades both of them. Take your apocolyptic world-dominist thinking and shuve it.
Also, God doesn't have to make a trial and produce evidence. He is Omnicient(all knowing), Omnipresent(everywhere, all at once) and Omnipotent(all-powerful). This translates to the following:
1. His knowledge, morality, and Ethics are Perfect
2. He sees everything you have done, are doing right now, and will do in the future.
God did not have to try the people of Soddom and Gamorrah. He was intimately aware of they're guilt.
No **** sherlock holmes. I know more of you mythologies history and implications than you do. Go back to worshipping Zeus, he's much less threatening to global security.
Setekh is right about something else, you are anthropomorphizing God. God is not human or mortal and you shouldn't ascribe human motivations to his actions.
GOD DOESN'T EXIST - The people who wrote that book are HUMAN - So I'f im 'anthropomorthphizing' [wrong term - correct term: personification] that means you're implying the authors of your holy books were subhuman.
-------------------
In short: GROW UP past needing an emotional crutch - or at very least KEEP IT OUT OF OTHER PEOPLES LIVES AND THE GOVERNMENT
I challenge you YET AGAIN to present evidence of his existance. - and I said EVIDENCE not fallacies, non sequiturs, and what your emotions tell you
-
Originally posted by Kazan
GOD DOESN'T EXIST - The people who wrote that book are HUMAN - So I'f im 'anthropomorthphizing' [wrong term - correct term: personification] that means you're implying the authors of your holy books were subhuman.
I challenge you YET AGAIN to present evidence of his existance. - and I said EVIDENCE not fallacies, non sequiturs, and what your emotions tell you
See, that's the wonderful thing about faith. For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation is possible.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Kara, I don't think any of the people in those cities was innocent. Before you jump on me, though, make sure you define innocence. If God does exist and is greater than us, he will surely have a greater and higher definition of innocence than we do or ever have.
Let's put it this way. How can a 6 month old baby have commited a sin? Let alone a sin worth of death.
Seq was claiming that everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah had committed sins evil enough that they deserved capital punishment. I'd like to know how a 6 month old can do that.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Let's put it this way. How can a 6 month old baby have commited a sin? Let alone a sin worth of death.
Seq was claiming that everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah had committed sins evil enough that they deserved capital punishment. I'd like to know how a 6 month old can do that.
That's assuming there was a six month old in either city. Remember, if one were without sin then the city would be spared.
You've got to understand, God's approach to his people his very different between the Old and New Testaments is pretty stark. Maybe it was a change in approaches. I know a good parable about that, but I doubt this audience really wants to hear it.
-
Meh, bring on the Lightning bolts then :) I've commited a few 'sins' in my time, and enjoyed quite a few of 'em ;)
But then, there is a large gap between Gomorrah and 'Let he who is without sin.....'
Although, of course, we are also assuming that Seq wasn't one of those people who manages to never actually notice the existence of children? God may be all powerful, but people can be morons :D
-
You don't understand,
ALL sin is punishable by death.
That is why Christ sacrificed himself. To provide a sacrifice worthy enough to pay the price for all our sin. He was God's son and he didn't have to die, he could've called a million angels down and wiped out the Romans and corrupt Jewish leadership, but he didn't. He begged and pleaded with his Father not to die that night in Gethsemane(sp?). But in the end he knew that if he didn't go through with it, mankind would be damned to burn in the Lake of Fire for all time.
-
So is that what happened to Moses and all the Jews who lived before Jesus then?
Sucks to be them then :D
-
Liberator we understand better than you'll ever realize - understanding and accepting are two different things
I know the story of christ, don't insult my by telling me things I already know
-
They're in a unique situation. Because the Jews are God's Chosen People, they get a pass so long as they fufil certain requisites. It used to be sacrificing a lamb but I don't know what they do today.
-
Or if you buy into the Dante interpretation, a number of them were taken up by Jesus when he decended into hell after the crucifixion.
-
Dante is work of fiction though.
Wasn't really talking to you though Kaz.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Because the Jews are God's Chosen People,
What sort of twat believes in a religion where another religion is their own gods chosen people?
-
Christianity
the Jews are God's Chosen, Christians get in because God felt sorry for us.
That's simplistic, but basically the way it is.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Dante is work of fiction though.
Wasn't really talking to you though Kaz.
Some say the same about the Bible, and thank you for clarifying my position.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Christianity
the Jews are God's Chosen, Christians get in because God felt sorry for us.
That's simplistic, but basically the way it is.
Uh-huh, thats why Christians have persecuted jews in europe for over a millenium :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Gank
Uh-huh, thats why Christians have persecuted jews in europe for over a millenium :rolleyes:
And then helped with the foundation of Israel, and then did (and continue to do) their best to protect it from, well, everyone.
:rolleyes:
-
Iirc britian signed off on palestine for help from the jewish lobby to drag the US into ww1. No religion involved. And the only nation helping Israel with defense is the US, which contains a small percentage of total christianity. Whatever fucked up little sect Lib is in might think the jewish are superior to them, but I seriously doubt the whole of christianity does.
-
what i dont understand is why Muslims and Jews don't get along better. The religions are so similar and historically the Jews and Muslims have been very friendly. In fact, the very first people to be nice to Muslims were the fine Jewish people living in Medina. It's all because a bunch of jews kicked a bunch of Muslims off their land that they dont get along. Anyway, the Messiah is supposed to lead the Jews to Israel, so WTF? Heresy.
-
Originally posted by Turambar
what i dont understand is why Muslims and Jews don't get along better. The religions are so similar and historically the Jews and Muslims have been very friendly. In fact, the very first people to be nice to Muslims were the fine Jewish people living in Medina. It's all because a bunch of jews kicked a bunch of Muslims off their land that they dont get along. Anyway, the Messiah is supposed to lead the Jews to Israel, so WTF? Heresy.
It's called the "zero sum" theory. "You have because I do not". Petty jealousy.
-
im very shocked about liberators views on jews infact - very interesting sect he is member of
as for "dante is just fiction" pretty much every christians view of hell is dante's view - it's basically been turned into the official image of hell by every christian in existance - it's a nice example of legendization and exaggeration processes that occur on stories as they're assimilated into religion
-
Originally posted by Kazan
im very shocked about liberators views on jews infact - very interesting sect he is member of
as for "dante is just fiction" pretty much every christians view of hell is dante's view - it's basically been turned into the official image of hell by every christian in existance - it's a nice example of legendization and exaggeration processes that occur on stories as they're assimilated into religion
Or a variant therof. According to Yonder Book, Hell cannot be envisioned by the living, same with Heaven. Whatever we can imagine, the reality is far worse. Dante was kicking out one idea.
I rather think of it as the surface of Venus. Eternal clouds, sulfuric acid rain, high pressure, 900 degree days that never end, etc.
-
then theres the Isaac Asimov story (the one where the world ends in 1956) where hell is just life with no desire, no motivation, and featurless boredom for all eternity. Living forever with nothing to do.
-
Originally posted by Turambar
then theres the Isaac Asimov story (the one where the world ends in 1956) where hell is just life with no desire, no motivation, and featurless boredom for all eternity. Living forever with nothing to do.
Totally believable.
-
and more scripturally founded IIRC
-
Originally posted by Turambar
Anyway, the Messiah is supposed to lead the Jews to Israel, so WTF? Heresy.
Interestingly quite a large proportion of the Israeli population is descended from central asia, the home of Gog and Magog.
-
Anyone else find it funny that Satan is always shown ruling Hell, but he is never once mentioned in the Bible as actually being in Hell, or being the devil?
-
grey wolf knows :D
-
Not entirely surprising...I have always thought that US fundamentalists were just as threatening as the Islamic fundamentalists. At least it goes along with the notion of equality.
Really worrying...
-
IceFire: read the book i've been citing from and prepare to be scared senseless :P
(Atleast i KNEW everything the book says, i just couldn't put it so concisely and will such thorough citations)
-
Well, if you get down to it, the original English colonists were treasure hunters (Virginia) and intolerant religious zealots (Massachusetts). What can you really expect when you combine those heritages?
-
Except the Islamic fundamentalists live in caves and the christian fundamentalists spend more on the military than the rest of the world combined.
-
Gank: bingo
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Anyone else find it funny that Satan is always shown ruling Hell, but he is never once mentioned in the Bible as actually being in Hell, or being the devil?
In the Qur'an Shaitan (satan) is an angel employed by Allah (God- yes, the same god worshipped by Christians and Jews) who tests people to see if they are good or bad by tempting them to do bad things, kind of the guy who whispers in your ear
-
That's one of the two non-devil interpretations. The other is very similar, but is a group of angels with the same job.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
If it was mass murder, who would you drag into court mik? God?
God, as Creator, reserves the right to eliminate those of his creation that don't at least as a general rule do what he says. The group in question was reveling in their sin, which is equivalent to killing a random person in front of a bunch of police.
Yes, if I could, I'd drag the bastard into court and try him. Though I doubt you could find a jury of his peers. ;)
You might worship God, Lib, but I think, if he exists (in the manner to which you ascribe), he's a crusty, cruel, outright racist, and vile bastard, and he should hang.
I never said I was reasonable.
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
You overstate your position, mikhael. Even the most suspicious stance towards the Bible cannot reasonably dismiss it as a witness to history. Frankly, we accept the historical value of scores of other ancient documents with religious content without difficulty, so why should the Bible be especially singled out as untrustworthy? If the biblical text says in multiple passages in multiple books that the Canaanites made it their regular religious practice to burn their babies alive as sacrifices to their gods, it is difficult to see how one could dismiss that evidence out of hand so easily while accepting Herodotus' history as substantially true without any more corroborating evidence.
Actually, I can dismiss the Bible as a witness to history. I do so, unreservedly. Even in the depths of a lunacy, a delusional mental patient will mention things that are real and exist. That doesn't make his story true. It just means that he mentioned some things that are real and exist. The President has told the truth, but that doesn't mean everything he says is true.
I don't accept any version of history as 'real' on its own. I would need to see corroborating (or contradicting) accounts from multiple sources on the subject in question. I recognize, truly, that some things in the Bible are corroborated to the degree that I am willing to stipulate to the veracity of the passages. This, however, as I said previously, does not render the entire account true. Is there any other, non-Biblical documentation that the Canaanites sacrificed their babies? Is there any Canaanite documentation that references the time in question?
History is full of cases where the victor has written that the loser was monstrous, subhuman and evil.
Moreover, the Bible shows a remarkable willingness to paint its supposed heroes in a bad light when they deserve it. Both David and Solomon are shown with all their faults, despite the status and esteem their memory had in the minds of the people. That's a far cry from the records one finds in Assyrian or Egyptian or Hittite annals.
While you are indeed correct, this does not render the text inerrant. All it does is show that someone felt that there was value in writing about the characters in such a way.
Furthermore, I might point out some serious inconsistency in your approach. It looks to me like you are willing to accept the biblical evidence when it suits you, and disregard it when it doesn't. That the Israelites killed many Canaanites you'll accept on no one's testimonty but the Israelites, but their testimony that the Canaanites regularly, universally, and systematically practiced infanticide is dismissed. What basis do you have for picking and choosing? Do the Israelites report history, or not?
Actually, as I said before, I take the entire Bible with a grain of salt. I judge what is written by my own moral and ethical inclinations. I do not consider it factual, except where corroborating evidence has been found. I am, unfortunately, a cynic. I do not know if the Israelites killed Canaanites--but I'm willing to stipulate that they DID. I also understand history, and remember that winners have a historical tendency to paint losers as monstrous. Did that happen here? Maybe, maybe not. Do I belive it happened here? Let's just say I give it better than even odds. Lacking any other documentation, I'll give you good odds that there was a victory for the Israelites over the Canaanites, and even better odds that the reasons given for the killing are bull****.
Now having said all that, I'll point out that there actually is corroborating evidence that the Canaanites sacrificed their babies in this way. Heaps of babies bones have been found near sacrifice sites, apparently burned.
Interesting. Given my feelings about other people's children, perhaps I should have been a Canaanite. (that's a joke people)
Seriously, that still doesn't clear up the issue, though it does help support the Israelite position, I'll admit.
But returning to the case in point, the killing of the Canaanites comes down to one issue so far as the Bible is concerned: they sacrificed their babies to their gods. This quick search (http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?passage=&search=pass+through+the+fire&version=NIV&language=english&optional.x=11&optional.y=8) shows just some of the references made to it. Burning babies alive is, so far as God is concerned, such a terrible thing as to be worthy of capital punishment, and is the underlying reason for 1) why he decided to have the Canaanites executed and the survivors dispossessed of their land, and 2) why he later decided that the Israelites who emulated the practices of surviving Canaanites would similarly be killed and the survivours dragged off into exile.
Now, what do we do with baby killers today? Where captial punishment exists, we execute them. Where it does not, we lock them up with no chance of parole. We kill them and do the modern equivalent of dispossessing them of their land. So, was God's action against the Canaanites murder or execution?
I smell a logical trap here, and I think you've neatly penned me in. ;)
To answer your first question, I don't think it matters what we do with baby killers today--we're a different society with different laws.
However, I did support the idea of trying God by those modern laws in a modern society, so we have a contradiction. Thus, I concede defeat.
As for your second question? That depends on which way the wind is blowing today, or the phases of the moon. Next time we get a thread on capital punishment, I'll explain that in more detail.
Oh, and what do you find questionable in the process of canon selection? I've heard you mention it before, so what exactly is it you have issue with?
That's better left to a different thread, I think. Quick summary:
1. Men did the original writing.
2. Men did the final selection.
3. The men involved had a vested interest in controlling the message of the resulting text.
Seriously, its best left to a different thread.
PS: Man I like debating with Sesq. :D
-
Of course, you have to remember that the original impetus for the Council of Nicea and the compiling of the Christian Bible was the fact that Emperor Constantine wanted a standard scripture for all of the new churches he was building in his new capital.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
3. The men involved had a vested interest in controlling the message of the resulting text.
Over the course of hundreds of years?(OT only of course since most of the NT consists of letters written to the early church by John and Paul)
-
The men in power in the Church had a vested interest over the course of the better part of two millennia, Lib. The human desire for power knows no age. But, as I recall, the Council of Nicea--to which I was referring--was NOT over the course of hundreds or thousands of years.
Want to discuss this further? Start another thread. I'll say no more on the topic here. Its not really relevant, at all.
-
liberator: translations are easily manipulated - and the council of nicea was in 300AD - which is also when the earliest copies of the so-called origional scriptures measure to be.
I'll try the patient approach with you for a while liberator since i have some patience right now.
Please do yourself a favor and read up on formal logic and the scientific process. Learn the language of science and it's nuances and read real science books. Know that something being emotionally appealing has nothing to do with it's factuality, nor does your parents having taught it to you as long as you can remember.
Something being said doesn't make it true, something being written doesn't make it true. All that is true and all that exists can be observed, measured, quantified and figured out and we have a strict process for doing so and its self-correcting in light of new evidence.
Know that morality is not black and white and need not be rested on some authoritarian entity - that the highest and purest form of morality comes from rationality. This morality deals in the complexities of the real world where morals can conflict with each other and involves processes for mitigating this conflict and resolving it.
Please liberator - do us all, the entire species, a favor and LEARN. The first rule of knowledge and wisdom is never accepting anything on face value, always look for real evidence
-
on a slight derail, it may come as interest that recent studies have showen that most moral judgments come not from the reasoning centers of the brain, but the emotional centers, like the superior temporal sulcus, the posterior cingulate and the precuneus, are found to become active during most personal moral judgements. (though impersonal moral judgements are handeled by the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, a logical center, this explains how people can have such difering and inconsistant views on similar things)
-
that would make sense for someone who is at the conventional stage
they should have given them a questionaire to determine if tey were at the conventional or the post conventional stage
-
Sometimes Kaz, you sound too reasonable for your own good. Are you sure you're not some angry AI or a racist Vulcan?;)
-
I can't determine if that's suppose to be a joke or an insult
-
This took awhile, and I have to go to work now. I'll be back later to address more posts. :)
Originally posted by Kazan
WRONG
Dictionary
genocide n.
systematic killing of a racial or cultural group
Doesn't say anything about _why_ just the act of killing a racial/cultural group is genocide. This is the definition you're going to find everyone in academia using to my knowledge
Really? Are you sure you didn't write that up yourself? This is the definition I find:
Main Entry: geno·cide
Pronunciation: 'je-n&-"sId
Function: noun
: the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=genocide)
There's a substantial difference there: in your version, if a group of people is killed who collectively form a racial or cultural group, regardless of the intention behind the action, it is a genocide. In Merriam-Webster's version, it is a genocide if the elimination of the group is the purpose.
The earliests payruses for the NT are in the THIRD century - and there are large gaps in the bible and glaring misognist meddling.
It has sense been translated numerous times, always with intentional alterations. When I said "modern" i was refering to modern translations which are really translations of translations of translations of translations - all translated by people with agendas
No, second century. Lemme see here...
Papayri from the second century: P77, P90, P98 (?), P103, P104
There is also one uncial from the second century: 0189
By "large gaps", what do you mean?
Of course it has been translated, but your English version off of the shelf is not a translation of a translation. They translate directly from the original languages. Or perhaps you meant recopied, not translated? In which case, of course, but textual criticism does an excellent job of sorting through the texts, each with their own scribal errors, and finding the original reading. Where uncertainties exist, they are usually on the order of "you were wandering like sheep" vs. "you were like wandering sheep"--which is hardly a major dificulty.
I have read the bible cover to cover - several translations. IT's all a load of lengendized historical fiction written by a bunch of people who didn't understand the world around them so they came up with a god to explain it - humans have been doing that for thousands of yeras. The problem is now we can explain what was once unexplainable, and that which isn't yet explained some of us have reached the emntal maturity to accept that it isn't explain yet but we will find the explaination.
You are welcome to your interpretation of both this book and of reality, but do recognise that it is your interpretation. Unless you can provide convincing evidence or argument for why one should accept your interpretation over another, do not pretend that your beliefs have any more claim to be true than another's. In all you've written, I've only seen you assert that atheism is true. If I want to claim that God exists, you are perfectly in your rights to demand some corroboration before accepting my claim. But the instant you make a counterclaim, the same obligation falls on you. So, show me that you have somehow gained a better access to reality than I have, and maybe I'll believe you.
However, be careful before accusing people of bias unless you can explain why they would have one.
You have a pro-bais favor because you being in your invisible friend in the sky since it';s emotionally appealing to you
Mikhael is an atheist, and will therefore have a predilection to give more weight to things that support, in one way or another, his position. The aim that both of us are striving towards, however, is to see as much as we can as clearly and truly as we can. I would expect him to call me on places where my bias is causing me to swerve, even as I have done for him.
Of course I am going to defend my beliefs against misrepresentation and assault: they are my beliefs. But I try not to let my bias cause me to ignore the things I find in the world.
Because I can say with 100% certainty and without being stereotyping that everyone who believes in teh bible picks and chooses which verses to believe, for one it contradicts itself in many places - for two that's human nature that is only overcome through a sense of intellectual integrity (which is requisit lacking in relation to the bible to believe it - compartmentalization allows someone who otherwise has it to loose it in relation to the bible)
Ignoring the unsubstantiated pot shot at the end...
Indeed there are contradictions. The reason is that different texts address different situations. Awareness of both the text and the situation allows one to understand the full message. When we then take what we learn from understanding all these different passages in their contexts, and put it all together into a cohesive whole, we are able to learn what the biblical teaching is. It is very much like the old parable about the six blind men and the elephant. Each of their individual statements alone are contradictory, but this comes from a failure to appreciate the whole. With a recognition of the whole, I am able believe the biblical text without having to pick and choose between its various contents.
I don't believe your justificatios until i find indpendant historical documents predating the bible and predating the destruction of Canaan documenting their atrocities - then I'll halfway believe you
Here are a few articles that came up on Google. They mention in one way or another the infant sacrifices practiced by the Canaanites (a.k.a. Phonecians). A large trove of bones was found in Carthage (a Canaanite colony), and others have been found in places like Tyre and on Megiddo. The one in Tyre seems to be the most recent discovery. I tried finding some more info on it, but it seems nothing else has been put on the net about it since--maybe a publication is still in the works?
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/baal.html
http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_365/Carthage.html
http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/~scribe/digest19983.htm (
http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/archaeology/berytus-back/berytus39/seeden-tophet/
I am concerned with the actual history - however for the sake of this argument the actual history is irrevelant - you are supporting and trying to justify genocide with a post facto rationalization and I'm not going to let you get away with it - it smells to high hell of BULLL****...
redundunt stuff about how I supposedly support genocide
That is rather confusing, Kazan. You are concerned with it and find that it is irrelevant?
Let's go with option one, and assume that you are concerned with the actual history. Well then, the Israelites neither decimated the ethnic group of the Canaanites, nor apparently intended too. They targeted certain smaller groups of Canaanites, made treaties with some, and in general had the sort of long and turbulent relationship with them that one would normally expect. No genocide to be found here.
For option two, I'll briefly recap and say that those sacrificing their children to their gods were the ones targeted in the text. The aim there also was not to destroy a people group--the fate of the people group is not really in view here, only the destruction of those engaging in this practice. So the text's directives do not meet the criteria of Merriam-Webster's defintion of genocide.
If they really were "baby killers" as you want to put it in such an emotinoally provacative manner to try and emotionally blackmail us - then it changes little. It changes from being a post facto rationalization to being an excuse.
Is there a non-emotionally provocative manner of saying that they sacrificed their children as burnt offerings to their gods? There is no emotional blackmail intended here--it is the spontaneous expression of my revulsion.
Now, it seems we have reached an end to our line of argument here. To you, the action of killing children in this way is not sufficient grounds for capital punishment. To me, the action is sufficiently heinous to warrant it. I doubt any argument over which of us is right in this matter will be fruitful, since that decision is a non-rational one at its core.
You have no evidence to support this claim
In some cultures/religions. You conviently ignored my point about your imaginary friend in the sky demanding Job kill his son (only to stay his hand at the last minute - however that is just saying "I want you to be willing to kill your child for me if you have to!") INFACT the bible in multiple places advocates killing of children. In one place it not only ADVOCATES it - it has the "angel of death" doing it. (Don't try to justify it as being pharo's decry - your imaginary sky friend still did it)
Which is it? First you say I have no evidence, then you grant my evidence. Ancient Near Eastern ritual was conducted communally, especially for such major rituals as infant sacrifice. The whole town or nation or whoever was being sacrificed for would attend. Thus, they were all party to it.
God does indeed ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, but it is not at all insignificant that God stops him from doing it. The whole point of including the story is to underline this fact. God doesn't want child sacrifices. In a culture where sacrificing children is an accepted ritual, that stopping is the shocking part, and it says a lot. To the minds of the writer and his intended audience, this story said one thing: God doesn't want child sacrifices. Later on God makes an explicit ban on sacrificing children.
The angel of death, now there's a good one. It is a different sort of thing than the others we've been talking about: it isn't humans sacrificing to the gods. Punishing people for heinous acts is one thing, but this brings us to a new place: how can God take life away from people when he forbids us to do so? In fact, how can he allow any children to suffer and die? How could he let it happen to my sister? Or anyone at all? These are all instances of the problem of evil, and I've wrestled with that a lot. These are my thoughts:
The simplest answer, of course, is that God is God, and both gives and takes away. It is not right if I "play God" with the lives of others, for they are my peers. But if God plays God, he is doing his job. This answer is true so far as it foes, but it isn't very satisfying.
Mostly, we want an explanation for evil. If it can be explained, we think, then that'll make it okay. Why? Because then we'll be able to say it makes sense, that it belongs here. But it doesn't belong here. We might be able to say how it got here, but where it came from can never make sense in this world. It'll never be "alright." This is why the simple answer, even if it is true as far as it goes, is not enough. It doesn't do anything about the situation.
You've read the book of Job. Now here's a fellow who is a really great guy. Then all this crap happens to him, and through it all he insists that he didn't deserve it despite the veiled accusations of his three friends that he did. God's answer to Job at the end is the most interesting bit. God basically 1) says that he knows what he is doing, 2) tacitly approves Job's insistence that he didn't do anything to deserve this, 3) also tacitly approves the words of the fourth friend who said that the issue wasn't merely what one did, but that even the best human being is not sufficiently good to be able to make a counterclaim against God, and 4) most importantly, changes things.
In this, parts 1, 2 and 3 are all essentially more detail on the simple answer. It is part 4 that is the most important bit. The author of this story is telling us something significant: explanations are all well and good, but what we want and need is change. The only satisfying answer there can be is for things to be fixed.
And it is this that is the more profound and meaty answer to the problem of evil. God intends to fix it. The whole Judeo-Christian religion is one big exercise in answering the problem of evil. God is God, and he'll deal with the world as he sees fit in the meantime, but in the end he intends to fix it.
However in 21st century Western civilization YOU do not make religion a private thing. There is a very large christian fundamentalist movement trying to rip up the constitution and establish a theocracy .... I will laugh at, and the fundamentalists will rue the day, that they make it a shooting war.
I beg your pardon, but did you really just accuse me of that?
First of all, I am Canadian. I don't care a whit about the American constitution or what you guys do with it. Not my country, not my problem. I have better things to worry about.
Second, I am not a fundamentalist.
Third, fundamentalists are only one tiny fraction of Christianity, so don't equate the two. Just because they are vocal doesn't make them representative.
Fourth, not all fundamentalists think this way. In fact, I would suspect it is a few wackos with big mouths who are saying this, and the average fundamentalist Christian doesn't agree.
Really, you should knock it off with the ad hominem attacks, Kazan. They don't accomplish anything except alienating the people who might otherwise want to support you.
Show me evidence
Of group trials? Probably the fastest way to do that is PM Su-tehp. He's in law school, so he should be able to name a few cases from your own system pretty easily
No really your THINK - you act like I don't. What ever the reasons for you supporting genocide IT'S STILL GENOCIDE. I don't give a rats if your god believesa it - that is unacceptable behavior. IT is made even worse by the fact that you're simply believing in something emotionally appealing that has no semblance of being real, no REAL evidence (you people like calling things which are absolutely not evidence 'evidence for god'), no logic [without logical fallacy]
However YOU are not god, the people who killed the Canaanites are NOT GOD - lots of people claim to know gods word. This is boviously impossible when you a) rationally approach whether god exists and b) lots of people claiming they have gods word contradict e/o on a regular basis
post facto rationalization by the victors
If you'd like to come down from your soapbox and talk to me, I'd like too. You accuse Setekh, and now I, with supporting genocide on the basis of this text. The way Setekh and I read it, it doesn't advocate genocide. Whatever you think it "really" says is irrelevant: we are talking about Setekh and me. The way we read it, it isn't about genocide, and neither of us would give approval to genocide on the basis of this text. Now, if you wish to ignore me and get back on your soapbox and tell me what "really" I think, go ahead. But don't expect me to accept that you know what I think better than I do, or that I am going to support a genocide on the basis of a text when I know myself I am not going to.
And furthermore to the eyes of those of us who have matured enough to be beyond gods (And don't take that as an intetional insult - psychologically, and sociologically speaking those who reach post-conventional morality and value real knowledge are psychologically and sociologically more mature than those who believe in emotionally appealing accounts of reality and in conventional morality, even worse quite often theists are all for pre-conventional morality)
Yes. Of course. Your position is obviously more mature than any other option. Everyone's always is.
I see the logical path for it to be justified in your eyes - however I call you person willing to commit crimes against humanity.
You call me willing to commit crimes against humanity when I say I am not and that in this text I find no legitimation for that. Don't be daft. If I read this text and find no legitimisation for genocide in it, I don't find one, which is all that matters for whether I am going to support one.
-
whoa, too much reading *rubs eyes*
lets rant about censorship!
-
Sesq, I'm not going to read all that. I only have so much time before ER. ;)
One thing caught my eye, however, and I must respond. :D
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Mikhael is an atheist, and will therefore have a predilection to give more weight to things that support, in one way or another, his position. The aim that both of us are striving towards, however, is to see as much as we can as clearly and truly as we can. I would expect him to call me on places where my bias is causing me to swerve, even as I have done for him.
I am NOT an atheist. I don't know how these rumors get started.
-
genocide
n : systematic killing of a racial or cultural group [syn: race murder, racial extermination]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
Among others
----
the Papayri you named are of dubious origins and confirmability - take it up with Dr Hector Avalos, an expert on the Papayri
"Large Gaps" as in entire books were ignored because they were pro-female-equality
----
If you think the off-the-shelf English version is a direct translation from Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic you're grossly mistaken. Furthermore the translator can (And does) easily manipulate meanings.
-----
My "interpretation" of reality has the force of evidence and logic behind it. I can easily give compelling arguments that you cannot refute. You would instead ignore them since you cannot refute them. I've seen the pattern a hundred times. My assertions come off as a strong-atheist because I assert that people who believe in religion are dangerous and irrational. I also often use the simplification "god does not exist" which is the compression of "Since there is absolutely no evidence for god, nor any logical reason for one to exist I find it extremely unlikely one exists" - and irrational is by definition, if you believe in something that you have no evidence to support you are irrational.
As for better access to reality - I consider everything logically and evenly, I do not make a judgement until I have all the evidence. I do not make judgements without evidence, and I can pick out logical fallacies quicker than you can say "Shivan Juggernaut". It is extremely difficult if not impossible to deceive someone like that. Furthermore by not subscribing to irrational worldviews that do nothing but appeal to emotion I maintain intellectual integrity. Faith is a fallacy, if you cannot understand why having a fallacy as the foundation of your worldview is bad then perhaps you're beyond hope.
-------------------
Mikhael being an atheist is almost certainly more likely to have a sense of intellectual integrity and will avoid doing that when possible. Furthermore the honest atheist almost rarely takes a poisiton without real evidence behind them.
Important Question: Have you ever asked yourself WHY you believe what you do
-------------
That "unsbustatiated pot shot" is about the farthest from unsubstantiated you can get. It is a psychological requirement for someone to either a) compartmentalize or B) have no critical thinking skills what-so-ever, to be religious. I find stating B can be taken more offensive than saying someone compartmetnalizes. I am more willing to believe you compartmentalize as well.
There are DIRECT contradictions - ie contradictions that cannot be explained away by situation. If you do not know this then you should, if you do know this then you're making cheap excuses.
--------------
I accept your sources about the Canaanites sacrificing children. However it should be known that Carthage was the site of several VERY large battles throughout history.
This still does not justify genocide
------------
It is confusing only if you are not paying attention and do not understand me. For matters of factuality i am very concenred with the actual history. However in the context of the conversation you are supporting genocide - whether or not the particular incident of genocide the bible claims happened happened.
Can you see the difference?
Is it a fact that Israelities commited Genocide against the Canaanites? I do not know right now
The Bible claims 'yes', you support the actions of the Canaanites if this was true - therefore you support genocide.
Killing an entire city is technically "genocide" - just small scale.
--------------
You assert it is capital punsihment - HOWEVER KILLING CHILDREN FAR TOO YOUNG TO HAVE BEEN GUILTY OF SAID CRIME BY THE ISRAELITIES IS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL - and goes to show that it was indeed genocide!
Are you going to continue to ignore trying to justify the Israelities doing exactly what you're condemning the Canaanites for? Infact by your logic the Israelities killed the Canaanites children to punish the Canaanites for killing their children.
You setup contradiction in your logic all by yourself. Way to go!
---------------
Which is it? First you say I have no evidence, then you grant my evidence. Ancient Near Eastern ritual was conducted communally, especially for such major rituals as infant sacrifice. The whole town or nation or whoever was being sacrificed for would attend. Thus, they were all party to it.
If you cannot tell the difference between real and hypothetical based off you're thinking than you need to go back and take logic and rhetoric classes REALLY BADLY.
So children taken there by their parents are guilty of killing because they're parents took them see a killing - BULL****
----------------
God does indeed ask Abraham to sacrifice his son, but it is not at all insignificant that God stops him from doing it. The whole point of including the story is to underline this fact. God doesn't want child sacrifices. In a culture where sacrificing children is an accepted ritual, that stopping is the shocking part, and it says a lot. To the minds of the writer and his intended audience, this story said one thing: God doesn't want child sacrifices. Later on God makes an explicit ban on sacrificing children.
Perhaps - however it's still conveying "I want you to be willing to killer your own children, but I don't want you to do it"
The angel of death, now there's a good one. It is a different sort of thing than the others we've been talking about : it isn't humans sacrificing to the gods. Punishing people for heinous acts is one thing, but this brings us to a new place: how can God take life away from people when he forbids us to do so? In fact, how can he allow any children to suffer and die? How could he let it happen to my sister? Or anyone at all? These are all instances of the problem of evil, and I've wrestled with that a lot. These are my thoughts:
Not only are you not addressing the question, but you're trying to construct a false analogy for usage in a straw man
The simplest answer, of course, is that God is God, and both gives and takes away. It is not right if I "play God" with the lives of others, for they are my peers. But if God plays God, he is doing his job. This answer is true so far as it foes, but it isn't very satisfying.
That's not an answer - that's avoiding thinking about it
Mostly, we want an explanation for evil. If it can be explained, we think, then that'll make it okay. Why? Because then we'll be able to say it makes sense, that it belongs here. But it doesn't belong here. We might be able to say how it got here, but where it came from can never make sense in this world. It'll never be "alright." This is why the simple answer, even if it is true as far as it goes, is not enough. It doesn't do anything about the situation.
Evil and Good do not exist, learn to think beyond terms of good and evil. They are childish definitions and limitations on thinking.
And that is also just more talking in circles to avoid thinking
You've read the book of Job. Now here's a fellow who is a really great guy. Then all this crap happens to him, and through it all he insists that he didn't deserve it despite the veiled accusations of his three friends that he did. God's answer to Job at the end is the most interesting bit. God basically 1) says that he knows what he is doing, 2) tacitly approves Job's insistence that he didn't do anything to deserve this, 3) also tacitly approves the words of the fourth friend who said that the issue wasn't merely what one did, but that even the best human being is not sufficiently good to be able to make a counterclaim against God, and 4) most importantly, changes things.
*cough* continuing to not address the question *cough*
In this, parts 1, 2 and 3 are all essentially more detail on the simple answer. It is part 4 that is the most important bit. The author of this story is telling us something significant: explanations are all well and good, but what we want and need is change. The only satisfying answer there can be is for things to be fixed.
So since you have no explainations for things, you don't need one. Bull**** - that doesn't fly anywhere that people actually use their brains.
And it is this that is the more profound and meaty answer to the problem of evil. God intends to fix it. The whole Judeo-Christian religion is one big exercise in answering the problem of evil. God is God, and he'll deal with the world as he sees fit in the meantime, but in the end he intends to fix it.
Continuing to Cop out and ignore the question
INFACT the bible in multiple places advocates killing of children. In one place it not only ADVOCATES it - it has the "angel of death" doing it. (Don't try to justify it as being pharo's decry - your imaginary sky friend still did it)
ADDRESS THE FACT THAT YOUR SUPPOSEDLY LOVING GOD COMMITED GENOCIDE
You cannot deny it - you can only try and doublespeak your way out of it. I jsut waisted ten minutes of my life replying to meaningless thoughtless doublespeak that shows an extremely high level of cognitive dissonance in you while trying to think about that. However you hit a "thinking block" that doesn't allow you to actually think about anything in relation to your great emotional addiction.
-----------------------------------
beg your pardon, but did you really just accuse me of that?
I implicate your PEERs which there is more than enough evidence to implicate. You are aiding an abbetting them - and are therefore accessory to the crime.
First of all, I am Canadian. I don't care a whit about the American constitution or what you guys do with it. Not my country, not my problem. I have better things to worry about.
So you don't care about freedom eh? A loss of freedom anywhere is a loss of freedom everywhere
Second, I am not a fundamentalist.
Do you subscribe to a literal interpretation of the bible. You seem to (and do a very poor job of interpreting)
If you do then you are a fundamentalist.
Third, fundamentalists are only one tiny fraction of Christianity, so don't equate the two. Just because they are vocal doesn't make them representative.
"One TINY" fraction my posterior region. It is a very significant section, it is dominating it infact and is growing. Furthermore I find anyone supporting thinking irrationally for your entire worldview as aiding and abetting the fundamentalists to a certain ammount.
However if you truely are not fundamentalist then they are a huge threat to you and you should be fighting against them tooth and nail
Fourth, not all fundamentalists think this way. In fact, I would suspect it is a few wackos with big mouths who are saying this, and the average fundamentalist Christian doesn't agree.
Incorrect - it is part of the definition of fundamentalism - due to the fact that they take a literal interpretation of the bible this behavior is infact mandated by their take on religion
Really, you should knock it off with the ad hominem attacks, Kazan. They don't accomplish anything except alienating the people who might otherwise want to support you.
Soemthing that is true is not an argumentum ad hominem - "You" in this situation was "You"="Christianity" - the fact that part of chrisitanity does that satisifies the condition that it is true.
Know the definition of a logical fallacy BEFORE you accuse someone of commiting it
-----------------------------------------
"The way you read it" is then a clear and total twisting of the words and actions - it is very CLEAR AND CONCISE that they commited genocide, whether they thought it justified or not.
What I think it says is based off professional literary and linguistic analysis rules.
------------------------
"Yes. Of course. Your position is obviously more mature than any other potion. Everyone's always is."
However - not everyone has psychology texts backing up that statement. I DO
----------------
You don't find one because you're unwilling to admit that actions taken therein are infact genocide by attempting to unreasonable pigeonhole your definition of the word genocide.
Don't try to play semantices with me
-
nu-uh
-
uh-huh!!
-
More random fun Judeo-Christian/Islamic facts: Angels did not originally have wings.
-
Dear sweet Jesus! It's Battle of the Long-Winded Debaters!
Keep it up, Sesq! I wish I was half as well spoken as you.
-
Liberator: long spoken he is, however well spoken he is most certainly not
-
You're just ill because he matched you point for point.
-
liberator: he did not do any such thing. He attempted - and he did present acceptable evidence for the Canaanites actually performing ritual sacrifice
however that's the only point he got anywhere on - infact most of the others he danced around like a balerina
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Dear sweet Jesus!
Blasphemy! You shall burn in the tartaran wastes for all eternity! :devil:
-
yes as we all know Jesus is actualy quite bitter.
you know I fail to see why the whole "well they were realy bad people" makes up for the fact that they were masacered, all of them. I mean I supose it at least makes the anchent Isaelies seem less evil, but genocide is genocide.
-
*gets popcorn*
Sesquipedalian, can you explain this part to me? Seems a bit... confusing.
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
There's a substantial difference there: in your version, if a group of people is killed who collectively form a racial or cultural group, regardless of the intention behind the action, it is a genocide. In Merriam-Webster's version, it is a genocide if the elimination of the group is the purpose.
Wasn't god's intention to wipe out those 2 cities? You can't say it wasn't genocide because by doing it he was trying to accomplish something else, because that way you couldn't say Hitler commited genocide either.
-
It's not genocide, you twit, God was the one doing it. The Creator can unmake his creations at His lesiure.
From His point of view, Sin(all of it, everything you can think of) is an action with only one penalty, death.
The problem most Aethists and Agnostics run into is they try to give God the same motivations and behaviors as your average human. God is not human, his mind is beyond our ability to comprehend or question.
-
So in your opinion a god is above the laws he creates? A creator can destroy his creation? When you create life are you allowed to kill it? If I were to clone someone would I be granted the right to kill him/her?
My dear Liberator, we in this discussion are not giving god any motivations or behaviors... we are merely discussing what he did according to your bible!! If anyone is giving him human motivations and behaviors it is YOU!! We didn't even mention a thing about his mind or any other similar thing, so you can stop making that argument over and over again either it applies or not (which normally doesn't... as in normally = always). And can you people stop calling me a twit? Make arguments, not insults... :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It's not genocide, you twit, God was the one doing it. The Creator can unmake his creations at His lesiure.
From His point of view, Sin(all of it, everything you can think of) is an action with only one penalty, death.
The problem most Aethists and Agnostics run into is they try to give God the same motivations and behaviors as your average human. God is not human, his mind is beyond our ability to comprehend or question.
That's one possible interpretation, Lib. Here's another:
God is a human creation, and as such, does have human motivations and behaviors. We like Him that way: it makes him something we can work with. Need proof? Look at the Bible? There's plenty of instances of the Old Man being a petty, crotchety bastard who changes his mind constantly and generally acts like a busy body instead of letting the world, you know, run.
It doesn't take and atheist or an agnostic to ascribe human motivations and behaviors to God. The Bible does it. Every time it says God loves us, its ascribing a human emotion to God. You can claim that its a different sort of emotion or that its figurative all you want, but that's just, you know, your interpretation. There's plenty of people out there who think you're wrong AND are non-atheist/non-agnostics. My own Baptist grandmother and my Presbyterian aunts are among them.
Btw, if a creator can destroy his creation, without penalty, does that mean I get to burn down the house I build on my own land? See, I need someone to stand up for me in court, becasue the police and fire department are calling it arson and want me to go to jail.
-
Liberator: do you ever actually consider what you think, or do you always accept it at face value
-
I asked the magic 8-Ball (http://www.indra.com/8ball/front.html), Kaz. Since your question was combined with a logical OR and the wording implies XOR, I decided to ask the questions of the 8-Ball in order. Here's what it said:
Liberator: do you ever actually consider what you think
Reply: "REPLY HAZY ASK AGAIN"
So I did. The Reply: "ASK AGAIN LATER"
This is silly. But I did ask again: "DON'T COUNT ON IT"
Well, that answers that. Lib does not consider what he thinks. Now, if I were a lazy sort, I'd call this a short circuit and not even bother with the second test, but since this is a work of dubious comedy, I shall proceed:
or do you always accept it at face value?
Reply: "IT IS DECIDEDLY SO"
Wow, the 8Ball got right to it that time.
Now, I figured that the 8ball might be rigged. Who knows, Kaz could be hiding out on the other side of that webpage feeding me answers. So I decided to ask The Mystical Smoking Head of 'Bob' (http://www.resort.com/~banshee/Misc/8ball/). As we all know, Mr. Dobbs epitomizes the concept of all that is slack. Bob is pretty neutral and I'm sure we can trust what he says.
Liberator: do you ever actually consider what you think
Reply: "OUTLOOK NOT SO GOOD"
Well, you know, Bob, I didn't ask about mail clients. So I asked again: "CONCENTRATE AND ASK AGAIN"
Now we're getting somewhere: "DON'T COUNT ON IT"
Interesting. Better ask the second half, just in case though:
or do you always accept it at face value?
Reply: "YES DEFINATELY"
Bob got right to the point on the second half too.
So, there you have it. Bob AND the Magic 8Ball agree. And if you can't trust a giant pool ball and a three eyed man smoking a pipe, really, who can you trust?
I will use this method of question resolution from now on. It seems to work pretty well. :)
-
You two are just ill because I don't happen to agree with you and are not as well spoken or thorough in my speech as Sesq.
8-Ball to :"Are Kazan and mikhael overintellectual buggers with no real concept of how the world works?"
8-Ball, first try: "Better not tell you now"
But I want to know
8-Ball, 2nd try: "Outlook Good"
mik's Smoking Head says:
"Cannot predict now"
no matter how many times I ask it's always the same.
However, It is probably aligned with you so I'll discount it for now.
-
I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the idea that if one embraces the teachings of the Bible, one endorses genocide.
And, facts be facts, the extermination of Sodom and Gomorrah was not genocide.
-
Lib: You would certainly be more fun if you could debate like Sesq. The key word is "debate". I have no doubt you believe whole heartedly in God and the religion you espouse, but, well, it doesn't matter. I only have fun in useful debate, not continuous restating of dogma. You would be EVEN LESS fun if you agreed with me. If you agreed with me, we would never have any meaningful discourse. What's the point in that?
The most important thing, though, is that the Magic Eight ball and the Smoking Head of Bob agree, and since they're pretty much non-deterministic and unbiased, they're might fun. ;)
Fun. That's what its about for me, Lib. Nothing more, nothing less. I really don't want to convert anyone, and I won't be converted, but I do enjoy debating stuff.
Ionia: i thought we were on about the Canaanites, not Sodom and Gommorah. S&G wouldn't be genocide, naturally. It was the destruction of a pair of cities and all within them regardless of ethnicity. The Canaanites were teh destruction of a specific ethnic group. Now, as Sesq pointed out, its more like a case of mass murder or mass execution, not genocide. Call it first degree mass murder and third degree genocide (the intent wasn't genocide, but it was a side effect).
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Ionia: i thought we were on about the Canaanites, not Sodom and Gommorah. S&G wouldn't be genocide, naturally. It was the destruction of a pair of cities and all within them regardless of ethnicity. The Canaanites were teh destruction of a specific ethnic group. Now, as Sesq pointed out, its more like a case of mass murder or mass execution, not genocide. Call it first degree mass murder and third degree genocide (the intent wasn't genocide, but it was a side effect).
That's what I get for posting before my first cup of coffee. Thank you for clearing that up.
Still, it leaves the point open. How does accepting Christianity/Judaism mean one must endorse genocide? (general question)
-
Mik: Thank you for one of the funniest things I've read all week. The 8-ball stuff really made me laugh.
-
whats all this assumption that god destroyed soddam and co? They found evidence a while ago that there were earthquakes in the area they are supposed to be located, and the land shifted into the sea as a giant landside. Plus with the natural methane pockets underground, these igniting when the gas was let out by the landslide explain the "fire from the sky" crap. Its just an example of how an event, unexplainable at the time, was attributed to "God". I beleive if it exists, it is either A) not all poweful uber guy in the sky or B) doesnt need to interfere with his creations - its planned out our destiny from the beggining (whatever that was).
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
whats all this assumption that god destroyed soddam and co? They found evidence a while ago that there were earthquakes in the area they are supposed to be located, and the land shifted into the sea as a giant landside. Plus with the natural methane pockets underground, these igniting when the gas was let out by the landslide explain the "fire from the sky" crap. Its just an example of how an event, unexplainable at the time, was attributed to "God". I beleive if it exists, it is either A) not all poweful uber guy in the sky or B) doesnt need to interfere with his creations - its planned out our destiny from the beggining (whatever that was).
If cosmoligists can entertain the theory of a "Grand Designer", I don't see what makes it such a ludicrous idea.
-
Originally posted by ionia23
Still, it leaves the point open. How does accepting Christianity/Judaism mean one must endorse genocide? (general question)
Accepting the dogma of the Book (no matter which of the three branches you subscribe to) does not imply endorsing genocide. Liberator has stated the case: God can destroy, or cause to be destroyed, any of His creations. Its His prerogative as Creator.
There's a distinction between ENDORSING something and ACCEPTING something. There's also a distinction between a secular act of genocide/mass-murder and a Divinely inspired act of genocide/mass-murder.
-
inioa23: I don't know of any cosmologists that entertain any theory of "grand design", some who are religious make comments fitting with their dogma that they think there is one, however cosmological science does not entertain any theory of a "grand design"
mik hit it on the head "genocide was the side effect" - Mass Murder in the 1st, Genocide in the 3rd
Liberator: the is no such thing as "overintellectual" - that is merely a word used by simpletons to attack that which they do not understand (can you tell my patience with you is growing thin again?)
Answer the questions Liberator: Do you ever think about why you believe what you do? Do you accept everything at face value if it agrees with your dogma
-
Originally posted by Kazan
inioa23: I don't know of any cosmologists that entertain any theory of "grand design", some who are religious make comments fitting with their dogma that they think there is one, however cosmological science does not entertain any theory of a "grand design"
Of course you don't, because if Grand Wizard Kazan "The Prince-Of-All-Knowing" didn't say it then there's no way it can be true. And I'm certain you play cards with Stephen Hawking on a regular basis too. Cosmology most certainly entertains it as a possibility if only on the premise that it can't be disproven, least of all by you.
-
Kaz is usually a bit off base, ionia, but I think he's correct here.
Cosmology as a science does not address the question of a prime mover or a grand designer. It addresses only the actuality of the cosmos. Or, more specifically, the American Heritege Dictionary says, "1. The study of the physical universe considered as a totality of phenomena in time and space; 2. a. The astrophysical study of the history, structure, and constituent dynamics of the universe; 2. b. A specific theory or model of this structure and these dynamics."
On the other hand, Webster's says, "The science of the world or universe; or a treatise relating to the structure and parts of the system of creation, the elements of bodies, the modifications of material things, the laws of motion, and the order and course of nature."
Finally, WordNet says this--though its a bit dodgy, specifically because of that second word (in my opinion), "1: the metaphysical study of the origin and nature of the universe 2: the branch of astrophysics that studies the origins and structure of the universe".
So generally, cosmology is scientific (ie, questioning, not answering) in nature, not religious (answering, not questioning) in nature.
There are some people--and hey, I'll admit to being one of them--who attach a creator BEFORE the creation of the universe, but that's not in the realm of cosmology itself.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
So generally, cosmology is scientific (ie, questioning, not answering) in nature, not religious (answering, not questioning) in nature.
There are some people--and hey, I'll admit to being one of them--who attach a creator BEFORE the creation of the universe, but that's not in the realm of cosmology itself.
I do think Kaz is out of his head. He's made it clear that unless "it" comes from his mouth/research, then "it's" laughable. That's been made clear since time out of mind.
So cosmology is out, and I've been completely-off-base in my use of the word for 25 years. I can accept that. Then what's the branch of astro-whatever dealing with the study of the origins of the big bang?
On a side note, Stephen Hawking is one of many who have addressed this. I ain't pulling that out of my hat. When you've exhausted possibilties, the ridiculous tends to make sense.
-
Hawking pointed out that it doesn't really matter what occurred before the Big Bang, because A) the question is flawed (there is no 'before' when there is not time, and time came into existence with the universe, IE after the big bang) and B) that the laws of physics began with the current universe, thus there is no way to use them to understand what came before them.
Cosmology does attempt to explain the Big Bang (Assuming you're looking at a Big Bang branch of Cosmology!), but only in terms of what happend from tau=0 onward. For anything that predates tau=0, you gotta go look at metaphysics and religion.
-
ionia23: i've made it clear that unless something comes from LOGIC or EVIDENCE then it's bull****
-
heres the thing. Why do the religious tend to reject science for the better part, especially the creation of the universe theories? The way I see it, if god exists it would have also created the laws of physics, in order for us to understand and comprehend the world we live in. I see genesis as one big simplified version of reality that the simpletons of the east 2000 years ago could understand (they did believe in some pretty crazy stuff back then all around the world, i doubt they could comprehend theoretical physics, planets formation and whatnot). Maybe God just set about the events in motion with the big bang, knowing the universe would end up here, with us. Then again we are a pretty egotistical race, it (creation) couldnt all be about us at all :D
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ionia23: i've made it clear that unless something comes from LOGIC or EVIDENCE then it's bull****
Crikey! A Vulcan! :D
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ionia23: i've made it clear that unless something comes from LOGIC or EVIDENCE then it's bull****
And i see yer short on both counts, but you sure talk a good talk.
*laughs*
-
Originally posted by Jiggyhound
heres the thing. Why do the religious tend to reject science for the better part, especially the creation of the universe theories? The way I see it, if god exists it would have also created the laws of physics, in order for us to understand and comprehend the world we live in. I see genesis as one big simplified version of reality that the simpletons of the east 2000 years ago could understand (they did believe in some pretty crazy stuff back then all around the world, i doubt they could comprehend theoretical physics, planets formation and whatnot). Maybe God just set about the events in motion with the big bang, knowing the universe would end up here, with us. Then again we are a pretty egotistical race, it (creation) couldnt all be about us at all :D
Depends on who you ask. Creationists are all about "What The Book Says Is What Is". I'm more of the opinion that we've got minds, we're welcome to go figure it out. Perhaps the whole story of Creation is simple metaphor for evolution. Anythings possible at this point.
It's easy to look back and say we were so stupid "then", but what about future generations looking back at us? Understanding and perspective are closely linked.
We'll figure it out. Eventually....
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Cosmology does attempt to explain the Big Bang (Assuming you're looking at a Big Bang branch of Cosmology!), but only in terms of what happend from tau=0 onward. For anything that predates tau=0, you gotta go look at metaphysics and religion.
Kinda my point. Answering the "presently" unanswerable.
-
Theyre already digging up evidence for the continuation of consciousness after body death. something to do with quantum entanglement, and how the mind operates on such a level, not just chemical processes and electrical signals. We already know thats not the full story with the brain.
-
ionia23: I have been questioning assertion sthis entire thread
What you SEE is nothing - If i am "short" on both counts you aren't even on the number line
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ionia23: I have been questioning assertion sthis entire thread
What you SEE is nothing - If i am "short" on both counts you aren't even on the number line
You are short on both counts because you work from the ideal that only what YOU believe has any basis in fact whatsoever. Unless someone else's factoid supports your own completely and without reservation, you rip them apart on little stinkin' details.
So whoopie doo that you can kick out a few phrases in Latin to show off, in the end it's simple Starbucks Brand coffeehouse-intellectualism.
-
ionia23, actually those "few phrases in Latin" are part of the vocabulary of a person who does a lot of debating and discussion. You learn about it in philosophy classes.
If you want to continue through with that opinion that Kazan doesn't use neither logic or evidences then please state you evidences and you logic about it. :rolleyes:
-
ionia23: If you think that I have that ideal and work from it then you delude yourself.
I work from the ideal that only things based in fact are valid things to believe. The thing with the MOST of the HIGHEST quality evidence when several pieces of evidence can support different thesises
as for those "latin phrases" those are nomenclature of formal logic
your baseless accusations presented in very insulting fashion are growing very tiresome. You offend me greatly with your presumption of how I think.
I have a very good working knowledge of psychology, sociology, biology and neurochemistry. I have an extremely thorough knowledge of formal logic, the science method, and rhetorical analysis. Through these I can make farely accurate judgements on what someone is thinking when I read what they say, and I can figure out why they think that. This ability ONLY comes through a vast ammuont of study and hands on expirience.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
ionia23: If you think that I have that ideal and work from it then you delude yourself.
I work from the ideal that only things based in fact are valid things to believe. The thing with the MOST of the HIGHEST quality evidence when several pieces of evidence can support different thesises
as for those "latin phrases" those are nomenclature of formal logic
your baseless accusations presented in very insulting fashion are growing very tiresome. You offend me greatly with your presumption of how I think.
I have a very good working knowledge of psychology, sociology, biology and neurochemistry. I have an extremely thorough knowledge of formal logic, the science method, and rhetorical analysis. Through these I can make farely accurate judgements on what someone is thinking when I read what they say, and I can figure out why they think that. This ability ONLY comes through a vast ammuont of study and hands on expirience.
My accusations are hardly baseless. Like the story goes, if you can't take it, don't dish it out, buster. End of discussion.
-
ionia23: If you can't substantiated it then don't dish it out, End of discussion.
-
Okay, I've been away for a few days, and there is no way I can reply to all that has been written, so here's a succinct summary of what I would say otherwise:
Everyone
I maintain that what happened with the Canaanite cities is not properly described as genocide. The idea of "genocide in the third degree", while closer to being a valid description, is still not quite right.
1) As I read over the book of Joshua again, I noticed this rather important fact: however one interprets the injunction given to the Israelites, it is clear that they understood it to mean that they were to target certain cities. "Destroy city X. Destroy city Y. Destroy city Z." This was how they carried out the campaign. Restricted, targeted action such as this is different from the wholesale killing required by genocide. In other words, they weren't killing all Canaanites, but rather these and those particular groups of Canaanites. In this light, it seems that the order to "destroy the Canaanites" referred to shattering their society (and their religious practices in particular), not to killing every last one of them. This is added to by the fact that for every order to kill to Canaanites in the book of Joshua there are two that say the Israelites are to drive them out of the land.
2a) The idea of "genocide in the third degree" entails the notion that it was not deliberate. But genocide is defined as deliberate (see link to Merriam-Webster posted above), and so the idea does not strictly make sense. We do not talk about "third degree murder" for the same reason. We use the word "manslaughter" to differentiate because without any intention the act of killing a person is no longer murder. Same story with genocide. So even if it weren't for consideration #1 above, this still shouldn't have the word genocide attached to it.
2b) Kazan's cited WordNet as providing a definiton which allows one to understand what happened to the Canaanite cities as genocide. However, WordNet's own website (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/~wn/) says: "We are not a dictionary or thesaurus service." WordNet groups words together based on similar ideas. That will make it inherently tend towards generalisation in its definitions, not exactitude. Merriam-Webster's definition has more clarity, and according to that definition, what happened with the Canaanites would not quite fit the bill for the term genocide even if it weren't for consideration #1.
Thus, I object to the term genocide being used for it, especially when it is used in a way that impugns my friend Setekh (or myself, as it later turned out).
Now, those things having been said, I certainly grant that there was a mass killing of many Canaanites, and that that raises a whole heap of moral issues, and none of them easy. Interested parties can scan through the sections below and look for topic headings that grab their attention if they want more detail.
Mikhael:
Thank you, I like debating with you too. :)
Re: the Bible as a witness to history:
To clarify, when I say "a witness to history," I mean that it gives evidence to be weighed, not that it is the be-all and end-all of history. It is well and good to take the Bible with a grain of salt. It certainly does not tell the whole story of everything that happens in its accounts--no account ever does or could. I am only saying that to do historical investigation properly, one should not come with an attitude of suspicion or an attitude of naivete--one should come to all the evidence with a non-committal attitude. The process of weighing the evidence has to come afterwards--nothing should be ruled out before the investigation begins.
Re: NOT being an atheist:
Ah, my bad. From your other comments in this thread, I'd guess you are a deist. But rather then me guessing, how would your describe your beliefs, my friend? :)
Re: God should hang for making a world like this:
You mean, something like this?
(http://web.sbu.edu/theology/bychkov/grunewald_christ3.jpg)
Actually, I'm not merely trying to be witty. No one way of explaining the meaning of what Christ did can suffice. One of the most meaningful for me is captured well in the following:
"I could never myself believe in a God, if it were not for the cross. The only God I believe in is the One Nietzsche ridiculed as "God on the cross." In a real world of pain, how could one worship a God who was immune to it? I have enterd many Buddhist temples in different Asian countries and stood respectfully before the statue of the Buddha, his legs crossed, arms folded, eyes closed, the ghost of a smile playing round his mouth, a remote look on his face, detached from the agonies of the world. But each time after a while I have had to turn away. And in imagination I have turned instead to that lonely, twisted tortured figure on the cross, nails through his hands and feet, back lacerated, limbs wrenched, brow bleeding from thony pricks, mouth dry and intolerably thirsty, plunged in God-forsaken darkness. That is the God for me! He laid aside his immunity to pain. He entered into our world of flesh and blood, tears and death. He suffered for us. Our suffering became more manageable in light of his. There is still a question mark against human suffering, but over it we boldly stamp another mark, the cross which symbolizes divine suffering. 'The cross of Christ ... is God's only self-justification in a world such as ours.'"
Kazan:
I will cut out the various side tracks and stick to the primary issue in this post.
ADDRESS THE FACT THAT YOUR SUPPOSEDLY LOVING GOD COMMITED GENOCIDE
You cannot deny it - you can only try and doublespeak your way out of it.
:wtf: Did you read what I wrote? I wasn't trying to worm out of anything. I was getting in as deep as possible. I am, contrary to your apparent belief, interested in the truth, not in protecting my current belief system. Thus, I am not happy to deal with one isolated instance, but want to deal with the whole damn thing. So what if we do find an explanation for this case?--there are billions upon billions more cases of God bringing infants to death. I was showing how HUGE the problem was, not getting out of it.
I do, of course, continue to insist that your emotionally-charged use of the term genocide is inaccurate, but as said above, we can agree that even without that incorrect term there are still plenty of moral issues to deal with. The best way to go about talking about those is actually by way of answering others of your questions. We'll get back to this issue shortly.
Important Question: Have you ever asked yourself WHY you believe what you do
Indeed I have. Many times. The answer is not simple.
To begin, we must consider the problem of evil briefly. To get to the point quickly, the argument from the problem of evil fails to prove that monotheism is wrong, but only just.
The propositions:
(A) God exists
(B) If God allows an evil, then God has a morally sufficent reason for allowing it
(C) There is evil
are none of them are self-contradictory, nor are they apparently incompatible. The only serious objection to be raised is against (B). Without going through the form, the essence of the objection is that if there were a justification for any evil, we would know it, but there are many for which we do not know of a justification. But there is no more reason to think that we would than that we wouldn't know what goes on in the mind of a being whose cognitive capacities, moral goodness, and causal powers vastly exceed ours. With no way to choose between these two options, I am left at a stalemate on the question, and cannot decide on this basis.
Next we consider the various events I have seen that we would commonly call miracles (I myself eschew the term miracle on other grounds that I don't have time to go into, but it will serve well enough for now). I usualy tell of one in particular, though there are more, for the reason that it is a physical healing that took place under the eyes of several non-religous medical professionals in a hospital to my younger brother. The medical records still exist. The short version is this: My 3 year old (at the time) brother fell eleven feet through the air onto a concrete floor, rupturing what the doctors figure was his spleen. His abdomen incredibly swollen, we rushed him to the hospital where they took him in immediately. While we prayed, they had him stretched out on a table while they did their scans (I am not familiar with the name of the scan) to determine exactly what was going on. On minute Zac's belly was swollen and he could hardly breathe for the pain. The next he was laughing, with no swelling, and nothing whatever wrong according to the scans anymore. The doctors declared that they had no explanation. The only available one is that God supernaturally healed him. However, it is also possible that an explanation that does not entail divine intervention will some day be discovered. There is no way to decide between these possibilities, and so this experience is also inconclusive as evidence regarding God.
So the score is tied at this point. Now for the two that make me a Christian:
I am convinced that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was a real historical event. Having investigated it quite a lot, I am convinced that 1) those who claim to have seen him alive after his crucifixion really and truly believed they had and that he was, and more importantly 2) that for him to die and rise from the dead was the very last thing that any first century Jew would expect their Messiah to do. I can go into more details on that if you wish.
It seems to me that the only logical conclusion of atheism is nihilism. Nietzsche saw it, and spent the rest of his life an career trying to find a way out of it. Kafka, Sartre, Camus, etc etc etc have all done likewise. You say that there is no good or evil, the main sign of nihilism in morality. But I am not willing to accept nihilism, for I see in it intellectual suicide. YOu're familiar with nihilism, I'm sure, so I needn't go into the details of why it is intellectual suicide. So, if I have to choose between being unable to solve the problem of evil and being unable to trust my mind's solutions to anything, I'll take the former option. Incomprehensible mystery on one issue is better than incomprehensible mystery on every level.
My "interpretation" of reality has the force of evidence and logic behind it. I can easily give compelling arguments that you cannot refute. ... I also often use the simplification "god does not exist" which is the compression of "Since there is absolutely no evidence for god, nor any logical reason for one to exist I find it extremely unlikely one exists" - and irrational is by definition, if you believe in something that you have no evidence to support you are irrational. ... As for better access to reality - I consider everything logically and evenly, I do not make a judgement until I have all the evidence. ... Faith is a fallacy, if you cannot understand why having a fallacy as the foundation of your worldview is bad then perhaps you're beyond hope.
When does any human have all the evidence? Assuming that you are not omniscient, you have to make judgements all the time without all the evidence. As such, you should recognise that all such judgements are tentative, like everyone else's. Being logical doesn't give one better access, it just allows one to work with what one has accessed.
So, show me your evidence that God does not exist. Failing that, you are making unfounded claims. Now, if you wanted to say "I find no evidence for the existence of God" that would be fine: you'd be a "soft" agnostic. But if you want to make the positive claim that there is no God, demonstrate it, or else recognise that everything you claim for my worldview is equally true of yours.
In fact, I'll cut to the chase: the thing about every worldview is that each on is comprised of unfounded claims--they are all taken on faith, atheistic ones included. We all of us have to have things that we "just believe" so that we have somewhere to start in evaluating ideas and otherwise engaging in the process of thinking. The only way to judge a worldview is not to examine its foundations (it is the foundation), but rather is to see how well it makes sense of the world we encounter.
Now, as already indicated above, I find that theism, and Christianity in particular, makes sense of the world I have encountered far better than atheism. That being the case, I have given it my provisional assent. That being the case, I must also accept that God is omnicompetent and morally perfect, as is entailed in accepting Christian theism as true. Therefore, I have to conclude that, even if I don't know the morally sufficient reason for an evil, or for evil in general, that there nevertheless is one.
So, turning back to the original problem regarding the Canaanites: We have already found what seem to me to be morally sufficient grounds for the adults in these Canaanite cities to be put to death. The question of the children remains outstanding. In doing a bit of research, I have found several possible explanations, but none of them seem entirely satisfactory to me. So on this issue I am forced to conclude that if there is a morally sufficent ground for making these (or any) children die, I do not know it. Having acceptd on other grounds that Christian theism is true, I therefore conclude that God has a reason, but I don't know it.
So, only one issue remains outstanding: how is that I can say that neither I nor Setekh are willing to support large scale killing on the basis of this text, even though I conclude that God must have been justified in so doing in this case?
The answer is so blindingly obvious to me that it was only as a result of something you said in your last post that I realised that you didn't see it. To sum it up succinctly:Matthew 5:43-44
You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
Under the law of the Mosaic covenant, it was possible for God to order his people to be his instruments when meting out punishment and death. But Jesus raises the law to a new level. Since Christ gave that command, God will now have to use other means to bring woe on the world: Christians are disbarred by his own command from being his instruments for that.
(Oh, and if you are worried about a Christian receiving a word from God to go kill people: no matter what sort of supposed "divine command" might be given contradicting Christ's word, a Christian cannot accept it. That's part of what is entailed in passages like Matthew 24:23-27: if anyone ever claims to have the authority to countermand Christ's command, we are to reject him and his words.)
Ghostavo
Originally posted by Ghostavo
Wasn't god's intention to wipe out those 2 cities? You can't say it wasn't genocide because by doing it he was trying to accomplish something else, because that way you couldn't say Hitler commited genocide either.
Yes I can. Wiping out a city is not genocide. One might call it "urbicide" perhaps, but it does not count as genocide. The word genocide indicates that an attempt is being made to eliminate a certain national, racial, political, or cultural group. The racial group itself is the target. In the case in question, the racial group itself isn't the target. Instead, there is simply an overlap in membership between the racial group and the target group.
It's like this. Let's say we have four objects, X1, X2, Y1 and Y2. Now, if I give orders that all X's are to be destroyed, X1 and X2 have had it. But if I give orders that all 1's are to be destroyed, X1 and Y1 are in trouble. In either case, X1 gets it.
Now let's say that X1 and Y2 are sitting on the shelf while X2 and Y1 are not. If I give orders that all 1's sitting on the shelf are to be destroyed, only X1 faces destruction. In this scenario, ordering that all 1's sitting on the shelf are to be destroyed has the same results as ordering that all X's sitting on the shelf are to be destroyed: X1 becomes a target.
Now replace "X" with "Canaanite", "1" with "so sinful as to deserve destruction", and "sitting on the shelf" with "inhabiting particular cities in the area of Israel's invasion". If God orders the destruction of all 1's sitting on the shelf, it isn't actually genocide. It'd only be genocide if X was the determining factor instead of 1.
This differs from Hilter's case in that Hilter was destroying people on the basis of X, and that his "shelf" extended to anywhere his power could reach.
karajorma
The basic difference between what God condemns these Canaanites for and what he himself does to the first-born of Egypt (or indeed to any infant who dies, or all of us, since we are all condemned to death from before we are even born) is this: the Canaanites do not have the right to sacrifice children to their gods, God does have the right to bring death to any and all of us. It's blunt, but its true.
Phew! Even trying to be short that got long. Anyway, I will be offline for the next month or so. With my wedding approaching quickly, and then my honeymoon, I won't be online much at all between now and the middle of June. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, fair and good, but be aware that I won't be back for some time, so it'll have to wait and then get bumped.
-
Actually, Sesq, I think I did lay it out in another thread, though not in detail. Its rather too personal to lay out in detail. :lol:
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Phew! Even trying to be short that got long. Anyway, I will be offline for the next month or so. With my wedding approaching quickly, and then my honeymoon, I won't be online much at all between now and the middle of June. If anyone wants to continue the discussion, fair and good, but be aware that I won't be back for some time, so it'll have to wait and then get bumped.
Congratulations, Sesq. Looking forward to your return. :)
-
:nod:
Congrats and Have Fun!
-
On a side topic, anyone have any more random differences between modern and ancient practice of Judaism/Christianity/Islam? (The Satan thing I mentioned on the other page, for example)
-
Christians eat pork, Muslims and Jews don't
Christians and Muslims believe in Jesus, Jews don't (mostly)
Christains belive that Jesus was the son of god, everybody else just looks at the Christians and says suure, ah no.
-
I was more or less referring to differences between modern and earlier practices within each, as opposed to differences between each other.
-
Mmmm...pork *drools*
-
Well, off the top of my head, like most old religions, Paganism believed the sun was carried across the sky by a Chariot. And that Chariot had a driver. The name of that driver was.... Beelzebub.
The name was chosen by the clergy to represent Satan because it allowed them to persecute Pagans for worshipping him :)
Christianity has changed quite a lot over the years, and there are so many 'branches' to it now that it's quite difficult to decide what is 'normal' practice :(
-
Originally posted by Turambar
Christians eat pork, Muslims and Jews don't
Except some Jews and Muslims eat pork and some Christians don't...
Christians and Muslims believe in Jesus, Jews don't (mostly)
Except some Jews do...
Christains belive that Jesus was the son of god, everybody else just looks at the Christians and says suure, ah no.
Except that some jews do believe that Jesus was the Son of God.
-
If a jew believes in Jesus... isn't he christian? :confused:
either way...
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
Yes I can. Wiping out a city is not genocide. One might call it "urbicide" perhaps, but it does not count as genocide. The word genocide indicates that an attempt is being made to eliminate a certain national, racial, political, or cultural group. The racial group itself is the target. In the case in question, the racial group itself isn't the target. Instead, there is simply an overlap in membership between the racial group and the target group.
It's like this. Let's say we have four objects, X1, X2, Y1 and Y2. Now, if I give orders that all X's are to be destroyed, X1 and X2 have had it. But if I give orders that all 1's are to be destroyed, X1 and Y1 are in trouble. In either case, X1 gets it.
Now let's say that X1 and Y2 are sitting on the shelf while X2 and Y1 are not. If I give orders that all 1's sitting on the shelf are to be destroyed, only X1 faces destruction. In this scenario, ordering that all 1's sitting on the shelf are to be destroyed has the same results as ordering that all X's sitting on the shelf are to be destroyed: X1 becomes a target.
Now replace "X" with "Canaanite", "1" with "so sinful as to deserve destruction", and "sitting on the shelf" with "inhabiting particular cities in the area of Israel's invasion". If God orders the destruction of all 1's sitting on the shelf, it isn't actually genocide. It'd only be genocide if X was the determining factor instead of 1.
This differs from Hilter's case in that Hilter was destroying people on the basis of X, and that his "shelf" extended to anywhere his power could reach.
City-State :p
Even if this isn't true, you are still forgeting that X or 1 are both determining factors. If you are trying to kill all jews (ala Hitler) you are hunting down a religious group. If you are trying to kill all those who are "so sinful as to deserve destruction" you are trying to kill not one but many religious, cultural, political, whatever groups. No it's no genocide, it's a whole bunch of them. And even if that still doesn't count as genocide, it will still count mass murder.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
If a jew believes in Jesus... isn't he christian? :confused:
*points at Sandwich*
Well, okay, to be fair, the term 'Jew' can mean a few different things (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=jew). ;)