At a time when we really need to be seen as helping the Afghan people (and the Pakistani people) there are those in the bush43 Administration & the military that want to run around like they are playing cowboys. What ever happened to prudence? What ever became of enlightened self interest? This Administration has none. It's become a bully that thinks it's too big to have to listen to others. The in your face approach may seem cool to kids & some adults, but that isn't how actually helping yourself accomplish goals is done, unless of course, you work for bush43.
There was no logic error in that post. I did not link to it suggesting that Sarah Palin wanted John McCain to die, so where you feel like puting that forth and suggesting that's what I or the linked post said speaks volumes about your reading comprehension.
Both Jesus' General, and myself, chose to highlight this link to show that not all Evangelical Christians are very good followers of Jesus' word. Now if you would like to say that Sarah Palin is crazy & wishes John McCain's death, please do so on your own posts & back it up with links as I did.
Because there are many of them and are self-contradictory.
I went a bit overboard on the logic, but you pointing out the preacher was an obvious attack on Palin. Its just more of the guilt-by-association crap that 4th graders can see through.
I just wish most of our voters had the intelligence of 4th graders.
I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd I'm listening to...
3 wishes he was praying for. I had never meant to make any logical linkage between the two.
While I do admit that I don't hold some of the views I've seen ascribed to Sarah Palin's beliefs, I would be one of those that would be willing to fight for her right to hold such views.
One thing that sets her apart from me is that she feels it is within her realm of religion to make others do as she believes. The unwashed masses..not so much. They mostly just want to be left out of other's religious ideals.
Religion in and by itself does frequently call upon it's adherents to "witness" to itself. Some more forcefully than others (ie - Islam), but America has since the Pilgrims had some who felt they were "the chosen people" and when they were in a position of power sought to force others to live as they chose to live. That's the scary part. Go ahead and practice your orthodox or unorthodox beliefs of faith, what ever they are, but here in the US since the Declaration of Independence through the Constitution, secularity is supposed to rule.
One thing that sets her apart from me is that she feels it is within her realm of religion to make others do as she believes. The unwashed masses..not so much. They mostly just want to be left out of other's religious ideals.
Some social conservatives moan about "liberals" allowing certain things to be legal is "forcing" them to be part of the "secular liberal agenda." Which is an epic fail in an attempted "gotcha" ploy.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Everybody believes in making others do as they believe
There is a clear cut difference in allowing people to do as one believes and making it illegal to do something one doesn't believe in. It can be something as trivial as Sunday shopping, which is still baned in some municipalities.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
It is wrong to murder because there is a victim in that crime. Namely, the person who is murdered.
No one is harmed if I use marijuana or alcohol or any other drug, legal or otherwise or visit a prostitute or have intercourse with someone of the same sex.
Victimless crimes should be crimes at all.
I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd I'm listening to...
" No one is harmed if I use marijuana or alcohol or any other drug, legal or otherwise or visit a prostitute or have intercourse with someone of the same sex."
Certainly drugs and alcohol harms innocent bystanders as often times it takes control of the user, I think prostitution is harmful to a society's values as a whole, as to your last point basically noone is trying to make sodomy illegal.
Certainly drugs and alcohol harms innocent bystanders as often times it takes control of the user,
That's the gun control argument. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Drugs don't destroy communities or innocent bystanders, people who use drugs destroy communities or innocent bystanders.
Now I'm not for the complete and outright abolishment of all drug laws. If you want to smoke weed, shoot heroin or use meth, you have to do it in private. If your altered state leads you to commit crimes, then you should be restricted because you're not mature enough to know your limits.
I think prostitution is harmful to a society's values as a whole
That's fine, but there is still no victim other than the nebulous "society at large".
As an aside, some people claim public health as a reason for prostitution. If that is the case, then quite logically it should also be illegal to engage in intercourse with someone for free. Money changing hands doesn't make more of a risk of the spread of disease.
as to your last point basically noone is trying to make sodomy illegal.
Only because its a fundamentally protected right under the Constitution. Before Lawrence v. Texas , 13 states had laws on the books criminalizing the act. A notable case is Idaho where the maximum penalty was life in prison.
I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd I'm listening to...
"That's the gun control argument. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Drugs don't destroy communities or innocent bystanders, people who use drugs destroy communities or innocent bystanders."
That's a poor analogy. Guns don't effect people to make them commit crime, drugs do. Guns are just tools for crime with no mind altering effects, drugs are not tools of crime, but actually change a person's thinking to cause them to commit the crime. I don't see where you see the similarity.
"If your altered state leads you to commit crimes, then you should be restricted because you're not mature enough to know your limits."
Allowing people to find their limit is dangerous to society - as its only done by trial and error, and once you're addicted, you have become a danger and drain on society.
"That's fine, but there is still no victim other than the nebulous "society at large"."
That probably sums up alot of the difference between Social conservatives and social liberals and libertarians. Social conservative view society as something important that can have a big impact on an individual. Social liberals only think of the direct impact of behaviour on individuals.
"Only because its a fundamentally protected right under the Constitution. Before Lawrence v. Texas , 13 states had laws on the books criminalizing the act. A notable case is Idaho where the maximum penalty was life in prison."
Nonetheless you do not hear calls for the overturning of Lawrence V. Texas like you do for Roe V. Wade. That debate is over for better or for worse.
There are already rules on the books that don't allow people to commit crimes while on drugs, Not all drug users commit other "crimes" if they did, my hometown would have be a ghost town even if only a few were caught committing other "crimes."
The "illegal" drug problem in the US was spurred on, in large part because of yellow journalist such as making up stories about scary black men going on crime sprees after being hopped up on marijuana or other drugs.
Not to mention the War on Drugs is fueling the epidemic of drug cartels in Mexico and other countries.
Allowing people to find their limit is dangerous to society - as its only done by trial and error, and once you're addicted, you have become a danger and drain on society.
"Illegal" drugs hasn't hurt Bill Maher's record collection.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You can find his blog here now. I certainly disagree with many of his assumptions and tenets but the guy's no shill. He's smart and honest and well worth reading.
Seems like a competition between the dems and reps this year as far as presidential candidates. Lord knows we've had some serious losers before but this year really seems to take the cake in terms of both parties jockeying to put the most vapid inappropriate choices into the whitehouse.
In that case, I have no worries, libertarians, unless they are blinded by ignorance, will by and large vote exclusively for JM, especially now that we have Palin on the ticket.
No libertarian in their right mind would ever chip in for Barry, with 300 Billion in new spending, wants to move the troops into Afghanistan, raising taxes on cap gains, payroll, death, lets just say if it has the word tax in it, BO is raising it, open immigration, etc etc etc!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
when that guy went nuts and broke into an Amish schoolhouse and killed one or two little girls and himself?
A couple days later the leaders of the Amish community attended a press conference with the wife of the guy and asked people to pray for her and for the man's soul.
Those people deserve the title real christian. They are truly trying to love those who attack them. That's a damn hard path to choose and actually really try to stick with. Those who mean it I salute. I don't agree with their beliefs about the cosmology of the universe, but I respect their dedication a hell of a lot.
Can you even begin to imagine a Dobson or a Falwell the day after 9/11 saying we should pray for the families of the hijackers, much less for the souls of the hijackers themselves?
that the number of real christians is pretty close to the number of plaid swans, i.e. negligible.
besides, real honest to god practice what the preach christians aren't the problem. There aren't enough of them, and never have been, to be a problem. The problems come from the multitude of faux christians who view the religion as an indulgence (term chosen extremely deliberately) to attack others.
...there is so much, that is so weird about what you just wrote?
Christians a problem? Wow! Makes me want to run back in my conservative bunker and prepare for war.
Churches are filled with millions and millions of Americans throughout this country every week, why would you be so patronizing across the board about the religion our nation was founded on, that provided the principles that made our country great, and that the overwhelming majority of Americans belong to?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
An awful lot of the problems of the last few centuries (and most of the ten before them) have sprung directly from the monotheistic faiths.
There's a reason we refer to the time period when Christianity basically ruled the world as "the Dark Ages" and its subsequent overthrow (for the most part) by reason and rationality as "the Enlightenment."
Christian doctrine is quite fine, fairly unremarkable really, it pretty much boils down to some funny cosmology and "hey, be nice to each other." That makes it little different than many thousands of other religions.
The one area where Christianity is fairly different is in the amount of power it managed to accumulate, mostly by being rampantly xenophobic towards others. It's worth pointing out that this xenophobia is much less a product of the doctrine than it is the people using the doctrine to gain power.
But anyway take, for an example, the current issues regarding birth control and sex education. This is a product of the early christian churches attempt to gain power by making themselves the gatekeepers of all sexuality. By claiming only they had the ability to grant permission for human beings to do something that they are biologically programmed to do, the church made themselves arbiters of all matters sexual.
Despite the enlightenment that ridiculousness still plays out today, as is very clear from a cursory examination of sexual politics in the US.
You don't find it at all funny that women are supposed to have been made from a rib of man? Or that there were two archtypal human beings who god decided to play an enormous gotcha game with? Or that all the animals were created simultaneously (or at least within the span of a week) and that Adam had time to name them all?
I find it a hoot personally, which is why people who in this day and age, with perfect access to contradicting evidence, take genesis literally seem such odd critters.
Now if you want to take genesis as metaphor that's something else entirely. But the creation myth of christianity is no less amusing that the hindu belief that the world rests upon a elephant which stands upon a turtle which stands upon another turtle and so on. Or the belief that winter occurs because Hades abducted and raped persephone.
It's superstition, and in the light of reason we have the faculties to marvel at it. It is very silly, which is not to say stupid.
...assassinating the validity, and reputation of a two thousand year old religion that has influenced western civilization more than any thing else is whats kinda funny?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
You want to be an atheistic intellectual hater, ok?
But most people in this world (cling) practice some form of religion that you would decry as silly superstition, but that faith has worked for millenia for the vast majority of people on earth, you're way out numbered.
In fact I bet - get your ass in a foxhole you'd be asking for some help from above yourself!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I was making observations, not attacks. Trust me, when I'm attacking you'll know :)
And I'm not an atheist.
But most people in this world (cling) practice some form of religion that you would decry as silly superstition, but that faith has worked for millenia for the vast majority of people on earth, you're way out numbered.
Let's break this down:
1) Most people are religious
True. It is very common, although in the west at least it appears to be waning somewhat.
2) Religion has worked for millenia
Depends on what you want to call "work."
3) I'm in the minority
Sure but that's hardly a bad thing.
As for #1) You are wishing it is declining, faith is alive and well!
The best source currently available is the huge Pew study, which involved interviews of 36,000 americans. You can find the full report here.
An excerpt:
The U.S. has largely avoided the secularizing trends that have reshaped the religious scene in recent decades in European and other economically developed nations – but not entirely. The
Landscape Survey documents, for example, that the number of Americans who are not affiliated with a religion has grown significantly in recent decades, with the number of people who today say they are unaffiliated with a religious tradition (16% of U.S. adults) more than double the number who say they were not affiliated with a religion as children (7%).
Pew found 16% of the population of the US was "unaffiliated". Compare with the City University of New York study in 2001
a. the proportion of the population that can be classified as Christian has declined from eighty-six in 1990 to seventy-seven percent in 2001;
b. although the number of adults who classify themselves in non-Christian religious groups has increased from about 5.8 million to about 7.7 million, the proportion of non-Christians has increased only by a very small amount – from 3.3 % to about 3.7 %;
c. the greatest increase in absolute as well as in percentage terms has been among those adults who do not subscribe to any religious identification; their number has more than doubled from 14.3 million in 1990 to 29.4 million in 2001; their proportion has grown from just eight percent of the total in 1990 to over fourteen percent in 2001
(I apologize I can't find a working link to the study results, I copied the above portion from an old blog of mine)
In addition to the growth of those not bound to any religion you also have a distinct greying of the religious population with younger generations being less likely to be religious and less likely to be "very religious" than their elders.
Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not arguing that Christianity is on its last legs. But right now it is indeed withering.
...I just thought it curious we were talking about how people are moving away from faith, and even more so how that religion is supposedly superstition, and yet here is one of the most superstitious of 'em all, the Catholic Church, and the Senate Majority Leader of the US is being summoned to SF to be chastised about her public comments, and she's going.
Extraneous, maybe not?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
As much as I loved the Catholic Church and especially the Latin mass, the pope and his political appointees have no right telling me whether I am worthy to receive communion.
Nancy Pelosi is Italian and, therefore, Catholic. I can absolutely understand why she would go and talk to this archbishop -- because I am also Italian and it is a cultural and ethnic imperative.
But she should tell the archbishop to go f*ck himself.
I concede that, more on topic than I read into it.
just thought it curious we were talking about how people are moving away from faith
But the kids hardly have a big Pelosi poster on their walls and look to her for spiritual guidance.
I'm not aware of too many non-"theistic" politicians though, there doesn't seem to be too close of percentage of politicians with a certain religious belief that correspond to the general populations percentage as a whole. Religious Affiliation of the 109th U.S. Congress
According to the pool: 13.2% of the population had an "unspecified religion, while only .7% of Congress did [3 members]
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Mazie Hirono (D-HI) is a Jodo Shinsu Buddhist.
Hank Johnson (D-GA) is a Soka Gakkai Buddhist.
Pete Stark (D-CA) is an atheist.
Mr. Stark recently "came out" as an atheist and the others were elected in 2006. With respect to the Buddhists, I assume the don't believe in a "God" since, as far as I know, Buddhists don't believe in one. Our resident Buddhist may need to school me further in this regard.
I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd I'm listening to...
I'm fairly sure that Buddhism is compatible with, but not requiring of, a belief in God. I believe most Buddhists don't, but some do. It's more of a philosophy than a religion, really. I think you can even be Buddhist and Christian at the same time.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Christian god way. They believe in reincarnation mind you. Within that notion lies the belief that we are god, albeit on a very superficial level while inhabiting a body. Drop your body and then the energy of yourself mingles with the energy of the cosmos & becomes one with it. But it takes many lives to get there for most.
It's really a beautiful thought. Much more open than the Christian interpretation which I think is plodding & pretty dull.
...The Buddha himself never taught about higher powers per say. He taught every man had the capacity to become a Buddha - which is the fully realized state of enlightenment.
But as with all things, as it spread up into the Himalaya's. and in Tibet particularly it was mixed with the indigenous shamanistic spiritual beliefs and so now, all though to Westerners they are more symbolic than anything, there are wonderful gods and goddesses in Buddhism.
You may have seen them in people's houses as decorations etc. painted on Thangka scrolls with colorful silk borders surrounding them.
But as I said, Buddhism itself, in the Pali Canon's do not teach anything about Deities.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
are different facets of the same god. Buddists do not. Buddists do teach about the higher plane and reaching enlightenment, fulfilling one's karmic duties and merging with the higher power that westerners call god.
3) I said it depends on the school of teaching, there are 3 major schools and many many sub cultures in those 3. We teach that anyone can become awakened through meditation, that is achieved via purification by removing mental defilements.
4) The Buddha taught no such thing. We are not "fulfilling one's karmic duties" whatever that means, we are creating karma as we live, and how we live, and are either collecting karma defilements - or are purifying them.
5) Buddhists have many Gods and Goddesses in Tibet for instance, hence the Green Tara above.
I do not practice Tibetan Buddhism, so I do what the Buddha instructed his students to do and meditate in order to be awakened, and nothing more. (Though I do have some Buddhist art around the house and office that I love, and that do have Gods and Goddesses in them.)
Kindness - your statement that "fulfilling one's karmic duties and merging with the higher power that westerners call god." is completely misleading and unsound.
No where does Buddhism teach about merging with a higher power, or a "God" in any way. In fact when asked about God, the Buddha insisted that it was of no consequence to us in this state. That is one reason it is often not considered a religion.
You should stick to things you know about, regardless of how few those may be, and resist the temptation to keep posting your quick check wiki education on issues you have no understanding of.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
that religions are faltering (I was clumsy in using the generic term faith before, I specifically am saying that organized religions appear to be weakening).
One of the other rather surprising results of th Pew survey above is that vast majorities of people of almost all faiths (exception for Jehovas Witness, Mormon, and one other small group that doesn't leap to mind) are very open to religious pluralism. That is they don't believe their faith is the only one by which one can know god.
Why does that matter? Well consider that all the largest religious denominations in the world have one major thing in common- they strictly declare all other faiths to be heretical and damned. As before this is in large part how Christianity spread- it attacked all surrounding faiths, often absorbing local dieties as demons in its own mythos (The babylonian Ashtaroth becomes the demon Astaroth for example).
Consequently a weakening of this hardline stance that "only my way is right" is very much a weakening of the religion in general. If people accept that other faiths are legitimate then they are sooner or later going to get lax about the dogma of their religion and move towards more of a personal relationship with their faith. At that point they are spiritual but not religious.
"You don't find it at all funny that women are supposed to have been made from a rib of man?" Considering God created things with the word of his mouth - no.
"Or that there were two archtypal human beings who god decided to play an enormous gotcha game with?"Not in the Bible
Or that all the animals were created simultaneously (or at least within the span of a week) and that Adam had time to name them all?
God could have created all of the animals in a nano - second.
Existence itself is a mystery. Why is it that there's someting rather than nothing? Just because something is unexplainable does not mean that it is unreal.
You have, or can easily get direct evidence controverting these beliefs, and yet you apparently continue to believe anyway based on the say so of... people who make money off of your belief and who base their arguments on incomplete and very often mistranslated passages written long after the fact by people who were vastly ignorant of the world compared to you or I.
I do in fact find that funny, but I also like Douglas Adams. The ability of Humanity to delude itself has a strong element of gallows humor when you know you're strapped in the shotgun seat and along for the ride no matter what.
Just because something is unexplainable does not mean that it is unreal.
Very true but also not the point of this topic. We aren't talking about the unexplainable. We are talking about the explained, and people who believe contrary to the evidence. Believing in literal Genesis is really no different than being a flat earther. Direct evidence contradicts the account, again if taken literally. If taken figuratively then you can resolve these discrepencies easily, but then the point of genesis is all a matter of interpretation.
How would you regard a person who insisted that the earth literally rested on the back of a giant elephant, no matter what?
reality, He leads me to believe that the Bible is true. Anyhow, it boils down to the fact that I don't think man's view of reality is limited to science. You think my view of reality is silly, I think your's is limited in its dimension. Because of this I don't see this conversation being able to go any further. Your easy dismissal of others beliefs, because your own narrow view of reality, (or misunderstanding of it) seems arrogant. That's all I'll say on the topic. It's pointless to debate this topic further.
Seriously. And I'm not trying to attack you personally. I am really just making observations of the situation. And I am genuinely curious what your answer to the last question (How would you regard someone who literally believed the world rested on the back of an elephant).
Faith is for the places between facts. When faith and fact overlap fact wins.
than what I did. While you might be able to prove that a visible elephant was not under the earth. I don't know any way to prove that there isn't some invisible elephant underneath the earth.
"When faith and fact overlap fact wins." I believe God is the ultimate truth and is therefore never going to contradict truth.
That's where you'll see Tlaloc and I (and perhaps Brutus) part ways with you.
For some unknown reason, all manner of completely bizarre and inherently untenable beliefs are given a free pass when we call them religion. Call it history or some other subject, and people are ridiculed as they very well should be.
I have never understood why its completely A-OK to believe that the story of Noah's Ark is the literal truth but similarly incredible beliefs about science or history or sociology or quite literally anything else are derided as being the rantings of a madman.
If one calls it "faith" one doesn't have to answer to the, frankly speaking, craziness of one's views.
I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd I'm listening to...
I think Edward Current has a video that goes hand in hand with what you're saying.
Ed Current:
People with unshakable core beliefs, however strange or delusional the beliefs may seem, deserve, command our deepest respect.
I've had some strange and vivid dreams in my life that incorporate things I thought about previously in day, I assume the same were to hold true if I started to believe in Thor, that I would have a dream where Thor would reveal to me that...
After that dream, I would still be aware of my other vivid dreams and throw Thor's appearance in that category unless something "truly" miraculous happened Same would go for other events.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
and just believeing something based on a whim. An agnostic or atheist doesn't understand how the Holy - Spirit brings one to a knowledge of the truth. Obviously if one sees the natural realm as being the only way to view reality, other ways would seem unreal or crazy. You view my way as crazy and I view your's as limiting and narrow minded. The only way you can find God is to be open to him yourself, so I think further discussion on this point is pointless.
I will however, point out that there's two types of Atheist/agnostics that I've met ( over the internet) one openly ridicules those of faith, and the other disagrees, but respects them. It's not arrogant or elitest to be an unbeliever ( I've been a skeptic myself), it does show more open mindness and humility though when is one is able to recognize that different people come from different backgrounds and even if you think they have different or wrong views - that's not cause for ridiculing the person.
I am a Christian. But I do not believe that every word in the Bible is the inspired Word of God and therefore true.
Several things convince me of this:
1. The books of the Bible were written by men. As such they are imperfect, even if inspired by God.
2. Politics. The Bible as we know it today did not take shape until 300 years after Christ lived when the Council of Nicea was convened. The council decided which books and gospels were divinely inspired and which were not. At that time there were many documents claiming to be the true Word of God. The council decided that the entire gnostic tradition and all of its gospels, including the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, were heresy and must be suppressed. This alone should give any Christian pause when deciding that every word of the Bible is true -- because that Bible was crafted by politically motivated men at the Council of Nicea who decided what stays and what goes.
3. Occasionally science and religion intersect and science offers explanations for biblical myths. The flood epic, for instance. It has been shown that there actually was a massive flood of monumental (biblical?) proportions several thousand years ago. Back then the Black Sea was much smaller than it is today and was cut off from the Mediterranean Sea by a natural earthen dam where the Bosporus Straits at Istanbul are today. That dam eventually gave way and the waters of the Mediterranean, much higher than the Black Sea, rushed in and raised the level of the Black Sea practically overnight, burying out communities along the shore benetah a wall of water. This is also why the Flood Epic is not unique to the Old Testament.
Anyhow, it boils down to the fact that I don't think man's view of reality is limited to science.
Anyhow, it boils down to the fact that I don't think man's view of reality is limited to science.
...I agree with this as well.
The issue is when faith says one thing and science says another, which you give credence to. I don't see that there's any contest between direct evidence and ancient parables.
call other people's religons 'funny' they really mean dangerous, such as when some people assert, so and so might be a muslims, *wink wink*, as if muslim's are funny, because they aren't christians.
in this kind of argument, I thought I should at least clarify this:
There's a reason we refer to the time period when Christianity basically ruled the world as "the Dark Ages" and its subsequent overthrow (for the most part) by reason and rationality as "the Enlightenment."
Well, that's a little problematic. Part of the reason some people call that era "the Dark Ages" is because the Renaissance, which rejected it, considered that era backwards. Contemporary scholars know better: the Middle Ages were an extremely rich and productive era for art, architecture, music, philosophy, etc.
For a long time we didn't know this because we just didn't have the research simply wasn't available, but no one uses "Dark Ages" seriously anymore.
There was definitely a shift in attitude towards the end of the Medieval period towards a newfound respect for the human being. For the better, I'd say.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
If you think I'm full of it feel free to say so :)
Part of the reason some people call that era "the Dark Ages" is because the Renaissance, which rejected it, considered that era backwards. Contemporary scholars know better: the Middle Ages were an extremely rich and productive era for art, architecture, music, philosophy, etc.
There's certainly truth there. The Dark Ages weren't utterly benighted, and one of the best points to be made in favor of christianity is all of the art that it inspired (although the counter argument is that those same artists may have been more free to explore their craft if they had not essentially been required to use it to glorify the church).
But regardless surely you can see that there is a very stark change between the eras? The Dark Ages, while not awful in every detail, were still very much times of superstition and mummery given license to substitute for common sense and enlightened thought. It's not an accident that medieval Europe was, in most sciences, far behind the greeks who predated them by over a millenia. There was a serious, almost unbelievable regression in the state of human knowledge that not coincidentally tracks with the rise of the church as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
or a long time we didn't know this because we just didn't have the research simply wasn't available, but no one uses "Dark Ages" seriously anymore.
Damn Political Correctness. No respect for the old names.
Maybe we should call them the "reason challenged ages"?
:)
The Founding Fathers specifically created a government where one religion WOULD NOT be paramount to any other:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And yes, the church I was raised in had no problem with birth control or abortion. When some nut case tries to tell me that I have to live by their odd interpretation of the Bible, I do find that a problem.
Stick to what Jesus is known to have said, not all the other wackos. Jesus never addressed birth control. jesus never addressed abortion. Jesus never addressed homosexuality.
"ABC News says regulators on Friday shut down Silver State Bank, saying the Nevada bank failed because of losses on soured loans, mainly in commercial real estate and land development. Andrew K. McCain, a son of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, sat on the boards of Silver State Bank and of its parent, Silver State Bancorp, starting in February but resigned in July citing "personal reasons," corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show. Andrew McCain also was a member of the bank's audit committee, responsible for oversight of the company's accounting. "
Ouch......Hey John....How far did that one fall from the tree?
As Tucker stopped outside her house to pick up her mail, the Fox camera crew emerged out of a car parked across the street and advanced on her, yelling questions. At this point, I’ll turn the account over to Tucker for the blow-by-blow account, as she recalls it:
O’Reilly guy: “Cynthia, in your column, were you comparing Bristol Palin to Jamie Lynn Spears?”
Cynthia: “In my column, I was criticizing Bill O”Reilly. And I stand by that.”
O’Reilly guy: “Bill pointed out that Jamie Lynn Spears was running around unsupervised. You know that. So you were saying that Bristol Palin was running around unsupervised.”
Cynthia: “If I said that, read that part. You’re holding the column (in your hand). Read where I said Bristol Palin was running around unsupervised.”
O’Reilly guy: “You inferred it.”
Cynthia: “I inferred O’Reilly is a hypocrite. And I stand by that. Good day, gentlemen. I’m going inside to finish my Saturday chores.”
Does O'Reilly really want to take the position that Sarah Palin supervised her own daughter's pre-marital sex and pregnancy at the age of 17?"
No but I'll bet he'd watch the video of it the perv.
It's not to far removed from being stupid on purpose.
Show me where I was discussing the candidates children.
Cynthia Tucker's article was on Bill O'Liely's hypocrisy. In the article she showed that O'Liely berated the teen Spears girls parents for having a child out of wedlock while still a teen. She points out that O'Liely then gives a pass to Palin and never suggests she was a poor mother. Why should his conclusion be different just because he politically agrees with one of the set of parents?
I'll tell you why and it has nothing to do with morals & everything to do with his (and conservatives) constant demand to put them ahead of others they don't agree with to try and show themselves as (morally) superior. In actuality it shows Bill is a piece of crap and has piss poor judgment. Hypocrisy.
Get over yourself. You aren't all that much different.
And the comments relating to the Spears girl and Palins daughter has jack to do with parenting or anything else, except your pathetic attempt to continue to bash Sarah Palin.
Stuck on stupid is a look I've just gotten used to seeing on you?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
The news here is that O'Reilly has been caught - yet again - having an ugly double standard when it suits him. That's all kindness is saying. Palin isn't the target here.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
If ever there was a car made for the times, this would seem to be it: a sporty subcompact that seats five, offers a navigation system, and gets a whopping 65 miles to the gallon. Oh yes, and the car is made by Ford Motor (F), known widely for lumbering gas hogs.
Ford's 2009 Fiesta ECOnetic goes on sale in November. But here's the catch: Despite the car's potential to transform Ford's image and help it compete with Toyota Motor (TM) and Honda Motor (HMC) in its home market, the company will sell the little fuel sipper only in Europe.
If they think they need to sell a lot of units they might be in trouble, but I'm sure their lobbyist could easily have good chances of increasing tax credits for people buying fuel efficient diesel cars like the one they are selling to make at least some imports available.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
He's one of those people who'll only buy Fords. He also has a decent amount of their stock in his portfolio.
Every time I mention Ford's stock prices he gets whipped up into a frenzy about how bad the company is run and how stupid they were to put all their money in SUVs and large trucks.
Ford Focus/Fusion commercials always crack me up when they talk about the "great gas mileage" and its not even over 30mpg highway.
I never broke the law; I am the law! -- George W. Bush Judge Dredd I'm listening to...
Wasn't it included in one of those massive omnibus bills? That's how those projects get approved in the first place -- a huge bill that includes everyone's pet project so nobody wants to see it shot down.
If they voted on these projects individually a lot of them would never get funded.
"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business."
If you liked the bush43 Administration and Jack Abramoff, you'll love an administration lead by McSame & Palin.
Wonder what the Bible says about fraudulently bilking the people you work for?
Comments :
90 civilians, most of them women and children, were killed by US
air strike in Afghanistan on August 22. That's what the Afghan Government is telling the UN
.
At a time when we really need to be seen as helping the Afghan people (and the Pakistani people) there are those in the bush43 Administration & the military that want to run around like they are playing cowboys. What ever happened to prudence? What ever became of enlightened self interest? This Administration has none. It's become a bully that thinks it's too big to have to listen to others. The in your face approach may seem cool to kids & some adults, but that isn't how actually helping yourself accomplish goals is done, unless of course, you work for bush43.
Why would an Evangelical preacher pray for John McCain's death?
In truth, he want's McCain to die AFTER he is elected so that Sarah Palin can be President
. That's because Jay Rogers of The Forerunner International Ministries wants a fellow Dominionist running the US. He said:
Pray for Sarah Palin to win.
Pray for John McCain's salvation and speedy death.
The good Reverand must have had second thoughts though as Jesus' General Points out he later changed that wish to:
Pray for John McCain's salvation and pray specific imprecatory prayers if he fails to pro-actively defend the sanctity of human life.
These Evangelicals...they certainly are filled with the spirit of Jesus and the Lord, aren't they?
Find the logical error
Prop 1: Jay Rodgers is a Dominionist.
Prop 2: Sarah Palin is a Dominionist.
Prop 3: Jay Rodgers is crazy and prays for the death of John McCain.
Conslusion: Sarah Palin is crazy and prays for the death of John McCain.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That's funny. No where there does anyone say that.
There was no logic error in that post. I did not link to it suggesting that Sarah Palin wanted John McCain to die, so where you feel like puting that forth and suggesting that's what I or the linked post said speaks volumes about your reading comprehension.
Both Jesus' General, and myself, chose to highlight this link to show that not all Evangelical Christians are very good followers of Jesus' word. Now if you would like to say that Sarah Palin is crazy & wishes John McCain's death, please do so on your own posts & back it up with links as I did.
And folks call us liberals crazy....
There's "Evangelicals" who don't follow Jesus- SHOCKING!
NT.
No one is a good follower of Jesus's word
Because there are many of them and are self-contradictory.
I went a bit overboard on the logic, but you pointing out the preacher was an obvious attack on Palin. Its just more of the guilt-by-association crap that 4th graders can see through.
I just wish most of our voters had the intelligence of 4th graders.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Sorry, Jesus' General only printed the last 2 of the Preacher's
3 wishes he was praying for. I had never meant to make any logical linkage between the two.
While I do admit that I don't hold some of the views I've seen ascribed to Sarah Palin's beliefs, I would be one of those that would be willing to fight for her right to hold such views.
One thing that sets her apart from me is that she feels it is within her realm of religion to make others do as she believes. The unwashed masses..not so much. They mostly just want to be left out of other's religious ideals.
Religion in and by itself does frequently call upon it's adherents to "witness" to itself. Some more forcefully than others (ie - Islam), but America has since the Pilgrims had some who felt they were "the chosen people" and when they were in a position of power sought to force others to live as they chose to live. That's the scary part. Go ahead and practice your orthodox or unorthodox beliefs of faith, what ever they are, but here in the US since the Declaration of Independence through the Constitution, secularity is supposed to rule.
One thing that sets her
Some social conservatives moan about "liberals" allowing certain things to be legal is "forcing" them to be part of the "secular liberal agenda." Which is an epic fail in an attempted "gotcha" ploy.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Everybody believes in making others do as they believe
We believe its wrong to murder and we make it illegal. Nothing so different about SoCons here.
Some believe in allowing others to do things they don't do
There is a clear cut difference in allowing people to do as one believes and making it illegal to do something one doesn't believe in. It can be something as trivial as Sunday shopping, which is still baned in some municipalities.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Big difference
It is wrong to murder because there is a victim in that crime. Namely, the person who is murdered.
No one is harmed if I use marijuana or alcohol or any other drug, legal or otherwise or visit a prostitute or have intercourse with someone of the same sex.
Victimless crimes should be crimes at all.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
And us SoCons believe there is a victim in abortion
" No one is harmed if I use marijuana or alcohol or any other drug, legal or otherwise or visit a prostitute or have intercourse with someone of the same sex."
Certainly drugs and alcohol harms innocent bystanders as often times it takes control of the user, I think prostitution is harmful to a society's values as a whole, as to your last point basically noone is trying to make sodomy illegal.
No, no, no
That's the gun control argument. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Drugs don't destroy communities or innocent bystanders, people who use drugs destroy communities or innocent bystanders.
Now I'm not for the complete and outright abolishment of all drug laws. If you want to smoke weed, shoot heroin or use meth, you have to do it in private. If your altered state leads you to commit crimes, then you should be restricted because you're not mature enough to know your limits.
That's fine, but there is still no victim other than the nebulous "society at large".
As an aside, some people claim public health as a reason for prostitution. If that is the case, then quite logically it should also be illegal to engage in intercourse with someone for free. Money changing hands doesn't make more of a risk of the spread of disease.
Only because its a fundamentally protected right under the Constitution. Before Lawrence v. Texas
, 13 states 
had laws on the books criminalizing the act. A notable case is Idaho where the maximum penalty was life in prison.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
"That's the gun control
"That's the gun control argument. People are ultimately responsible for their own actions. Drugs don't destroy communities or innocent bystanders, people who use drugs destroy communities or innocent bystanders."
That's a poor analogy. Guns don't effect people to make them commit crime, drugs do. Guns are just tools for crime with no mind altering effects, drugs are not tools of crime, but actually change a person's thinking to cause them to commit the crime. I don't see where you see the similarity.
"If your altered state leads you to commit crimes, then you should be restricted because you're not mature enough to know your limits."
Allowing people to find their limit is dangerous to society - as its only done by trial and error, and once you're addicted, you have become a danger and drain on society.
"That's fine, but there is still no victim other than the nebulous "society at large"."
That probably sums up alot of the difference between Social conservatives and social liberals and libertarians. Social conservative view society as something important that can have a big impact on an individual. Social liberals only think of the direct impact of behaviour on individuals.
"Only because its a fundamentally protected right under the Constitution. Before Lawrence v. Texas , 13 states had laws on the books criminalizing the act. A notable case is Idaho where the maximum penalty was life in prison."
Nonetheless you do not hear calls for the overturning of Lawrence V. Texas like you do for Roe V. Wade. That debate is over for better or for worse.
Can't resist:
As this godless sodomite can attest, it's definitely for the better!
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Using "illegal" drugs is just a per se violation.
There are already rules on the books that don't allow people to commit crimes while on drugs, Not all drug users commit other "crimes" if they did, my hometown would have be a ghost town even if only a few were caught committing other "crimes."
The "illegal" drug problem in the US was spurred on, in large part because of yellow journalist such as making up stories about scary black men going on crime sprees after being hopped up on marijuana or other drugs.
Not to mention the War on Drugs is fueling the epidemic of drug cartels in Mexico and other countries.
"Illegal" drugs hasn't hurt Bill Maher's record collection.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
The quickening
A big block of social conservatives views changed.
A lot of Popes would disagree on whether there is a victim in some "abortions."
The Texas Republican Party didn't get that memo and they seem to be a large group.
The Texas Republican Party Platform in 2004:
"The [Texas Republican Party] opposes the decriminalization of sodomy"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
My husband believes in fishing
He doesn't make me believe in fishing.
I don't like to fish.
If he forced me to go, I wouldn't be married to him.
I'm only half stupid
My vacation is over
I took last week of work and the first day my internet connection died. Only got it back over this weekend. Consequently I wasn;t much online at all.
Normally that would drive me insane, but I have a substantial resevoir of apathy for politics at the moment.
And yes the vacation was very nice.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I manlove Daniel Larison
You can find his blog here now. I certainly disagree with many of his assumptions and tenets but the guy's no shill. He's smart and honest and well worth reading.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Manlove...naw, check it regular....yep. Good call. n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Who can be the most irresponsible?
Seems like a competition between the dems and reps this year as far as presidential candidates. Lord knows we've had some serious losers before but this year really seems to take the cake in terms of both parties jockeying to put the most vapid inappropriate choices into the whitehouse.
Who will rid me of this troublesome duocracy?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
"The Madness of John McCain"
In an older article from The American Conservative"If McCain finally makes it to the White House, the U.S. will surely start new wars, and not just in the Middle East. "
A lot of Libertarians really dislike The Megalomaniac Maverick and the man with the so-called Messiah complex.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You're taking a seed - and calling it a tree Brutus...
...He's a military guy, true.
Libertarians don't want any intervention abroad, true.
JM messiah complex...Barry's got that market cornered.
I think you've gotten high on your own supply brother?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I think the "messiah thing" was directed at Obama n/t
Oh got it, thx. ;-)
In that case, I have no worries, libertarians, unless they are blinded by ignorance, will by and large vote exclusively for JM, especially now that we have Palin on the ticket.
No libertarian in their right mind would ever chip in for Barry, with 300 Billion in new spending, wants to move the troops into Afghanistan, raising taxes on cap gains, payroll, death, lets just say if it has the word tax in it, BO is raising it, open immigration, etc etc etc!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Hrrrm...
a thought occurs:
If the Rapture happened and all the true Christians were removed from this world... would anyone actually notice?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Revelation 7:3-8
It depends on how literal the 12,000 from the 12 tribes of Israel is.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I'm just going off
my own experience regarding the paucity of actual christians.
I suppose people in Amish areas might notice. I have some serious respect for the Amish.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
How do you define an "actual" Christian? NT
NT.
Do you remember
when that guy went nuts and broke into an Amish schoolhouse and killed one or two little girls and himself?
A couple days later the leaders of the Amish community attended a press conference with the wife of the guy and asked people to pray for her and for the man's soul.
Those people deserve the title real christian. They are truly trying to love those who attack them. That's a damn hard path to choose and actually really try to stick with. Those who mean it I salute. I don't agree with their beliefs about the cosmology of the universe, but I respect their dedication a hell of a lot.
Can you even begin to imagine a Dobson or a Falwell the day after 9/11 saying we should pray for the families of the hijackers, much less for the souls of the hijackers themselves?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Actual Christians
vote Republican.
I'm only half stupid
The other thing we established was that...
...85% of Americans identify themselves as "Christian", so it might be a day you'd never forget... ;-)
Hard to get goods and services thats for sure!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
85% identify as above average too
I can claim to be spectacular outcrop of igneous rock. Unlike in make-believe, claims in the real world don't mean much.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Oh come on, well you haven't been around but...
,,,,we have been convinced that Christians don't believe in creation and the rapture or stuff like that... ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I wouldn't mind
In fact, I'd be a happy camper.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
My point is
that the number of real christians is pretty close to the number of plaid swans, i.e. negligible.
besides, real honest to god practice what the preach christians aren't the problem. There aren't enough of them, and never have been, to be a problem. The problems come from the multitude of faux christians who view the religion as an indulgence (term chosen extremely deliberately) to attack others.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What a strange, bizarre view of it...
...there is so much, that is so weird about what you just wrote?
Christians a problem? Wow! Makes me want to run back in my conservative bunker and prepare for war.
Churches are filled with millions and millions of Americans throughout this country every week, why would you be so patronizing across the board about the religion our nation was founded on, that provided the principles that made our country great, and that the overwhelming majority of Americans belong to?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Not that strange
An awful lot of the problems of the last few centuries (and most of the ten before them) have sprung directly from the monotheistic faiths.
There's a reason we refer to the time period when Christianity basically ruled the world as "the Dark Ages" and its subsequent overthrow (for the most part) by reason and rationality as "the Enlightenment."
Christian doctrine is quite fine, fairly unremarkable really, it pretty much boils down to some funny cosmology and "hey, be nice to each other." That makes it little different than many thousands of other religions.
The one area where Christianity is fairly different is in the amount of power it managed to accumulate, mostly by being rampantly xenophobic towards others. It's worth pointing out that this xenophobia is much less a product of the doctrine than it is the people using the doctrine to gain power.
But anyway take, for an example, the current issues regarding birth control and sex education. This is a product of the early christian churches attempt to gain power by making themselves the gatekeepers of all sexuality. By claiming only they had the ability to grant permission for human beings to do something that they are biologically programmed to do, the church made themselves arbiters of all matters sexual.
Despite the enlightenment that ridiculousness still plays out today, as is very clear from a cursory examination of sexual politics in the US.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Exibit A, of the eitiest attitude of secular liberals. NT.
NT.
History is elitist?
Well they say in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You ought to not mix up history
with your rather simplified view of it. That wasn't all history in there either.
So narrow it down for me
Which part is it that offends you?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Can't say I'm particularly offended
But for starters, calling people's religous belief's "funny" strikes me as a bit arrogant.
Well
You don't find it at all funny that women are supposed to have been made from a rib of man? Or that there were two archtypal human beings who god decided to play an enormous gotcha game with? Or that all the animals were created simultaneously (or at least within the span of a week) and that Adam had time to name them all?
I find it a hoot personally, which is why people who in this day and age, with perfect access to contradicting evidence, take genesis literally seem such odd critters.
Now if you want to take genesis as metaphor that's something else entirely. But the creation myth of christianity is no less amusing that the hindu belief that the world rests upon a elephant which stands upon a turtle which stands upon another turtle and so on. Or the belief that winter occurs because Hades abducted and raped persephone.
It's superstition, and in the light of reason we have the faculties to marvel at it. It is very silly, which is not to say stupid.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes but you have to understand a internet commenter...
...assassinating the validity, and reputation of a two thousand year old religion that has influenced western civilization more than any thing else is whats kinda funny?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
*shrug*
If it makes you giggle...
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well, I mean whats the motive...
...of attacking someone's religion?
You want to be an atheistic intellectual hater, ok?
But most people in this world (cling) practice some form of religion that you would decry as silly superstition, but that faith has worked for millenia for the vast majority of people on earth, you're way out numbered.
In fact I bet - get your ass in a foxhole you'd be asking for some help from above yourself!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
What attack?
I was making observations, not attacks. Trust me, when I'm attacking you'll know :)
And I'm not an atheist.
Let's break this down:
1) Most people are religious
True. It is very common, although in the west at least it appears to be waning somewhat.
2) Religion has worked for millenia
Depends on what you want to call "work."
3) I'm in the minority
Sure but that's hardly a bad thing.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Ok, well you read your post and attach whatever adj. you like...
...As for #1) You are wishing it is declining, faith is alive and well!
#2) I mean work in the terms a smart person like yourself should be able to interpret easily.
#3) It's not a better thing either. ;-)
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Faith declining
The best source currently available is the huge Pew study, which involved interviews of 36,000 americans. You can find the full report here.
An excerpt:
Pew found 16% of the population of the US was "unaffiliated". Compare with the City University of New York study in 2001
(I apologize I can't find a working link to the study results, I copied the above portion from an old blog of mine)
In addition to the growth of those not bound to any religion you also have a distinct greying of the religious population with younger generations being less likely to be religious and less likely to be "very religious" than their elders.
Don't get me wrong. I'm certainly not arguing that Christianity is on its last legs. But right now it is indeed withering.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I think these things...
...ebb and tide just as so many things do. In the 80's we saw a resurgence, in the 2000's we're seeing a contraction.
If you look back over the last 200 years I assume you would see the same cyclical phenomenon, but a steady increase in general over time.
Good information, thanks.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
One thing is pretty clear...
....Nancy Pelosi sure seems to give a darn about all that supersticious stuff
! LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
So what.
Nancy must be confused on who the current Pope is.
The Roman Catholic Church itself has been in "serious conflict" with itself on many issues in the past.
And bringing up a Democrat that is a Christian is extraneous to the conversation.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Extraneous, maybe...
...I just thought it curious we were talking about how people are moving away from faith, and even more so how that religion is supposedly superstition, and yet here is one of the most superstitious of 'em all, the Catholic Church, and the Senate Majority Leader of the US is being summoned to SF to be chastised about her public comments, and she's going.
Extraneous, maybe not?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
This is why I left the Catholic Church
I grew up Catholic. I am now a Methodist.
As much as I loved the Catholic Church and especially the Latin mass, the pope and his political appointees have no right telling me whether I am worthy to receive communion.
Nancy Pelosi is Italian and, therefore, Catholic. I can absolutely understand why she would go and talk to this archbishop -- because I am also Italian and it is a cultural and ethnic imperative.
But she should tell the archbishop to go f*ck himself.
qui tacet consentire
Somehow I doubt that's what she has in mind...
...You're kind of feisty tonight? LOL!
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I have no doubt she will be deferential
Because it is how we were all raised.
And it is difficult to get past that.
But this archbishop is pursuing a political agenda and he needs to be put in his place.
If I were her, I would have no hesitation in daring him to excommunicate me.
qui tacet consentire
I concede that, more on
I concede that, more on topic than I read into it.
But the kids hardly have a big Pelosi poster on their walls and look to her for spiritual guidance.
I'm not aware of too many non-"theistic" politicians though, there doesn't seem to be too close of percentage of politicians with a certain religious belief that correspond to the general populations percentage as a whole.
Religious Affiliation of the 109th U.S. Congress
According to the pool: 13.2% of the population had an "unspecified religion, while only .7% of Congress did [3 members]
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
There are three
Mazie Hirono (D-HI) is a Jodo Shinsu Buddhist.
Hank Johnson (D-GA) is a Soka Gakkai Buddhist.
Pete Stark (D-CA) is an atheist.
Mr. Stark recently "came out" as an atheist and the others were elected in 2006. With respect to the Buddhists, I assume the don't believe in a "God" since, as far as I know, Buddhists don't believe in one. Our resident Buddhist may need to school me further in this regard.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Buddhism/God
I'm fairly sure that Buddhism is compatible with, but not requiring of, a belief in God. I believe most Buddhists don't, but some do. It's more of a philosophy than a religion, really. I think you can even be Buddhist and Christian at the same time.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Buddist belief allows for a higher power, but not in a
Christian god way. They believe in reincarnation mind you. Within that notion lies the belief that we are god, albeit on a very superficial level while inhabiting a body. Drop your body and then the energy of yourself mingles with the energy of the cosmos & becomes one with it. But it takes many lives to get there for most.
It's really a beautiful thought. Much more open than the Christian interpretation which I think is plodding & pretty dull.
LOL! It depends on the school of Buddhism...
...The Buddha himself never taught about higher powers per say. He taught every man had the capacity to become a Buddha - which is the fully realized state of enlightenment.
But as with all things, as it spread up into the Himalaya's. and in Tibet particularly it was mixed with the indigenous shamanistic spiritual beliefs and so now, all though to Westerners they are more symbolic than anything, there are wonderful gods and goddesses in Buddhism.
You may have seen them in people's houses as decorations etc. painted on Thangka scrolls with colorful silk borders surrounding them.
But as I said, Buddhism itself, in the Pali Canon's do not teach anything about Deities.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Hindu's have multiple gods & goddess' although they all
are different facets of the same god. Buddists do not. Buddists do teach about the higher plane and reaching enlightenment, fulfilling one's karmic duties and merging with the higher power that westerners call god.
Reading Wiki again Kindness...
1) Hindus have many gods and goddesses.
2) It is Buddhist, not buddist.
3) I said it depends on the school of teaching, there are 3 major schools and many many sub cultures in those 3. We teach that anyone can become awakened through meditation, that is achieved via purification by removing mental defilements.
4) The Buddha taught no such thing. We are not "fulfilling one's karmic duties" whatever that means, we are creating karma as we live, and how we live, and are either collecting karma defilements - or are purifying them.
5) Buddhists have many Gods and Goddesses in Tibet for instance, hence the Green Tara above.
I do not practice Tibetan Buddhism, so I do what the Buddha instructed his students to do and meditate in order to be awakened, and nothing more. (Though I do have some Buddhist art around the house and office that I love, and that do have Gods and Goddesses in them.)
Kindness - your statement that "fulfilling one's karmic duties and merging with the higher power that westerners call god." is completely misleading and unsound.
No where does Buddhism teach about merging with a higher power, or a "God" in any way. In fact when asked about God, the Buddha insisted that it was of no consequence to us in this state. That is one reason it is often not considered a religion.
You should stick to things you know about, regardless of how few those may be, and resist the temptation to keep posting your quick check wiki education on issues you have no understanding of.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
I actually think this is a good example of another way
that religions are faltering (I was clumsy in using the generic term faith before, I specifically am saying that organized religions appear to be weakening).
One of the other rather surprising results of th Pew survey above is that vast majorities of people of almost all faiths (exception for Jehovas Witness, Mormon, and one other small group that doesn't leap to mind) are very open to religious pluralism. That is they don't believe their faith is the only one by which one can know god.
Why does that matter? Well consider that all the largest religious denominations in the world have one major thing in common- they strictly declare all other faiths to be heretical and damned. As before this is in large part how Christianity spread- it attacked all surrounding faiths, often absorbing local dieties as demons in its own mythos (The babylonian Ashtaroth becomes the demon Astaroth for example).
Consequently a weakening of this hardline stance that "only my way is right" is very much a weakening of the religion in general. If people accept that other faiths are legitimate then they are sooner or later going to get lax about the dogma of their religion and move towards more of a personal relationship with their faith. At that point they are spiritual but not religious.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
You skipped over Islam...? n/t
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Was it Islam?
Alright then. I just remember them making a point that the three groups combined were only 2% of the US population.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
"You don't find it at all
"You don't find it at all funny that women are supposed to have been made from a rib of man?" Considering God created things with the word of his mouth - no.
"Or that there were two archtypal human beings who god decided to play an enormous gotcha game with?"Not in the Bible
Or that all the animals were created simultaneously (or at least within the span of a week) and that Adam had time to name them all?
God could have created all of the animals in a nano - second.
Existence itself is a mystery. Why is it that there's someting rather than nothing? Just because something is unexplainable does not mean that it is unreal.
See I find that funny.
You have, or can easily get direct evidence controverting these beliefs, and yet you apparently continue to believe anyway based on the say so of... people who make money off of your belief and who base their arguments on incomplete and very often mistranslated passages written long after the fact by people who were vastly ignorant of the world compared to you or I.
I do in fact find that funny, but I also like Douglas Adams. The ability of Humanity to delude itself has a strong element of gallows humor when you know you're strapped in the shotgun seat and along for the ride no matter what.
Very true but also not the point of this topic. We aren't talking about the unexplainable. We are talking about the explained, and people who believe contrary to the evidence. Believing in literal Genesis is really no different than being a flat earther. Direct evidence contradicts the account, again if taken literally. If taken figuratively then you can resolve these discrepencies easily, but then the point of genesis is all a matter of interpretation.
How would you regard a person who insisted that the earth literally rested on the back of a giant elephant, no matter what?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I believe the Holy - Spirit leads us to the reality behind all
reality, He leads me to believe that the Bible is true. Anyhow, it boils down to the fact that I don't think man's view of reality is limited to science. You think my view of reality is silly, I think your's is limited in its dimension. Because of this I don't see this conversation being able to go any further. Your easy dismissal of others beliefs, because your own narrow view of reality, (or misunderstanding of it) seems arrogant. That's all I'll say on the topic. It's pointless to debate this topic further.
Can you answer the last question, please?
Seriously. And I'm not trying to attack you personally. I am really just making observations of the situation. And I am genuinely curious what your answer to the last question (How would you regard someone who literally believed the world rested on the back of an elephant).
Faith is for the places between facts. When faith and fact overlap fact wins.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I would view them as someone who had different beliefs
than what I did. While you might be able to prove that a visible elephant was not under the earth. I don't know any way to prove that there isn't some invisible elephant underneath the earth.
"When faith and fact overlap fact wins." I believe God is the ultimate truth and is therefore never going to contradict truth.
Thank you.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Religion gets a pass
That's where you'll see Tlaloc and I (and perhaps Brutus) part ways with you.
For some unknown reason, all manner of completely bizarre and inherently untenable beliefs are given a free pass when we call them religion. Call it history or some other subject, and people are ridiculed as they very well should be.
I have never understood why its completely A-OK to believe that the story of Noah's Ark is the literal truth but similarly incredible beliefs about science or history or sociology or quite literally anything else are derided as being the rantings of a madman.
If one calls it "faith" one doesn't have to answer to the, frankly speaking, craziness of one's views.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'm not one of the chosen few, who went ahead and fell for...
Your stealing from Sam Harris.
I think Edward Current
has a video that goes hand in hand with what you're saying.
Ed Current:
I've had some strange and vivid dreams in my life that incorporate things I thought about previously in day, I assume the same were to hold true if I started to believe in Thor, that I would have a dream where Thor would reveal to me that...
After that dream, I would still be aware of my other vivid dreams and throw Thor's appearance in that category unless something "truly" miraculous happened Same would go for other events.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Well, I find a difference between believing based on faith
and just believeing something based on a whim. An agnostic or atheist doesn't understand how the Holy - Spirit brings one to a knowledge of the truth. Obviously if one sees the natural realm as being the only way to view reality, other ways would seem unreal or crazy. You view my way as crazy and I view your's as limiting and narrow minded. The only way you can find God is to be open to him yourself, so I think further discussion on this point is pointless.
I will however, point out that there's two types of Atheist/agnostics that I've met ( over the internet) one openly ridicules those of faith, and the other disagrees, but respects them. It's not arrogant or elitest to be an unbeliever ( I've been a skeptic myself), it does show more open mindness and humility though when is one is able to recognize that different people come from different backgrounds and even if you think they have different or wrong views - that's not cause for ridiculing the person.
I'm unclear on the difference
How exactly do you discriminate faith from whim?
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
That's incorrect
It isn't about ridiculing the person, but the belief.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Some thoughts on this subject
I am a Christian. But I do not believe that every word in the Bible is the inspired Word of God and therefore true.
Several things convince me of this:
1. The books of the Bible were written by men. As such they are imperfect, even if inspired by God.
2. Politics. The Bible as we know it today did not take shape until 300 years after Christ lived when the Council of Nicea was convened. The council decided which books and gospels were divinely inspired and which were not. At that time there were many documents claiming to be the true Word of God. The council decided that the entire gnostic tradition and all of its gospels, including the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, were heresy and must be suppressed. This alone should give any Christian pause when deciding that every word of the Bible is true -- because that Bible was crafted by politically motivated men at the Council of Nicea who decided what stays and what goes.
3. Occasionally science and religion intersect and science offers explanations for biblical myths. The flood epic, for instance. It has been shown that there actually was a massive flood of monumental (biblical?) proportions several thousand years ago. Back then the Black Sea was much smaller than it is today and was cut off from the Mediterranean Sea by a natural earthen dam where the Bosporus Straits at Istanbul are today. That dam eventually gave way and the waters of the Mediterranean, much higher than the Black Sea, rushed in and raised the level of the Black Sea practically overnight, burying out communities along the shore benetah a wall of water. This is also why the Flood Epic is not unique to the Old Testament.
I agree with you on that.
qui tacet consentire
Just to be clear
...I agree with this as well.
The issue is when faith says one thing and science says another, which you give credence to. I don't see that there's any contest between direct evidence and ancient parables.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
when some people
call other people's religons 'funny' they really mean dangerous, such as when some people assert, so and so might be a muslims, *wink wink*, as if muslim's are funny, because they aren't christians.
I'm only half stupid
Really?
All I see is Tlaloc's opinion.
Sic semper tyrannis
Though I'm generally on your side
in this kind of argument, I thought I should at least clarify this:
Well, that's a little problematic. Part of the reason some people call that era "the Dark Ages" is because the Renaissance, which rejected it, considered that era backwards. Contemporary scholars know better: the Middle Ages were an extremely rich and productive era for art, architecture, music, philosophy, etc.
For a long time we didn't know this because we just didn't have the research simply wasn't available, but no one uses "Dark Ages" seriously anymore.
There was definitely a shift in attitude towards the end of the Medieval period towards a newfound respect for the human being. For the better, I'd say.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Don't worry about "sides," man
If you think I'm full of it feel free to say so :)
There's certainly truth there. The Dark Ages weren't utterly benighted, and one of the best points to be made in favor of christianity is all of the art that it inspired (although the counter argument is that those same artists may have been more free to explore their craft if they had not essentially been required to use it to glorify the church).
But regardless surely you can see that there is a very stark change between the eras? The Dark Ages, while not awful in every detail, were still very much times of superstition and mummery given license to substitute for common sense and enlightened thought. It's not an accident that medieval Europe was, in most sciences, far behind the greeks who predated them by over a millenia. There was a serious, almost unbelievable regression in the state of human knowledge that not coincidentally tracks with the rise of the church as the ultimate arbiter of truth.
Damn Political Correctness. No respect for the old names.
Maybe we should call them the "reason challenged ages"?
:)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Forgot the 1st Amendment?
The Founding Fathers specifically created a government where one religion WOULD NOT be paramount to any other:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
And yes, the church I was raised in had no problem with birth control or abortion. When some nut case tries to tell me that I have to live by their odd interpretation of the Bible, I do find that a problem.
Stick to what Jesus is known to have said, not all the other wackos. Jesus never addressed birth control. jesus never addressed abortion. Jesus never addressed homosexuality.
Good news for the AFC South
" No one likes to be told there just flecks of dust floating through the universe without purpose."
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Which reminds me
You're welcome for that trade.
I could have got a hell of a lot more for Cassel. :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Bank Tied To John McCain's Son Goes Under
"ABC News says
regulators on Friday shut down Silver State Bank, saying the Nevada bank failed because of losses on soured loans, mainly in commercial real estate and land development. Andrew K. McCain, a son of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, sat on the boards of Silver State Bank and of its parent, Silver State Bancorp, starting in February but resigned in July citing "personal reasons," corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission show. Andrew McCain also was a member of the bank's audit committee, responsible for oversight of the company's accounting. "
Ouch......Hey John....How far did that one fall from the tree?
Bill O'Riely is a hypocrit....Cynthia Tucker busts Papa Bear.
"Atlanta Journal Columnist Cynthia Tucker deigned to criticize Orally for his hypocrisy on Jamie Lynn Spears vs. Bristol Palin. Bill-O's ambush mavens were sent out against her and merely compounded the douchebags problem...in hilarious fashion.
As Tucker stopped outside her house to pick up her mail, the Fox camera crew emerged out of a car parked across the street and advanced on her, yelling questions. At this point, I’ll turn the account over to Tucker for the blow-by-blow account, as she recalls it:
O’Reilly guy: “Cynthia, in your column, were you comparing Bristol Palin to Jamie Lynn Spears?”
Cynthia: “In my column, I was criticizing Bill O”Reilly. And I stand by that.”
O’Reilly guy: “Bill pointed out that Jamie Lynn Spears was running around unsupervised. You know that. So you were saying that Bristol Palin was running around unsupervised.”
Cynthia: “If I said that, read that part. You’re holding the column (in your hand). Read where I said Bristol Palin was running around unsupervised.”
O’Reilly guy: “You inferred it.”
Cynthia: “I inferred O’Reilly is a hypocrite. And I stand by that. Good day, gentlemen. I’m going inside to finish my Saturday chores.”
Does O'Reilly really want to take the position that Sarah Palin supervised her own daughter's pre-marital sex and pregnancy at the age of 17?"
No but I'll bet he'd watch the video of it the perv.
Have any thing else besides what the current...
...status of the candidates children is?
Biden's Son could be filleted in the media
, do you see Republicans going on and on about it?
Move on already?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Purposefully obtuse doesn't look good on you.
It's not to far removed from being stupid on purpose.
Show me where I was discussing the candidates children.
Cynthia Tucker's article was on Bill O'Liely's hypocrisy. In the article she showed that O'Liely berated the teen Spears girls parents for having a child out of wedlock while still a teen. She points out that O'Liely then gives a pass to Palin and never suggests she was a poor mother. Why should his conclusion be different just because he politically agrees with one of the set of parents?
I'll tell you why and it has nothing to do with morals & everything to do with his (and conservatives) constant demand to put them ahead of others they don't agree with to try and show themselves as (morally) superior. In actuality it shows Bill is a piece of crap and has piss poor judgment. Hypocrisy.
Get over yourself. You aren't all that much different.
Um gee, where was it...
...oh ya...
Bank Tied To John McCain's Son Goes Under
And the comments relating to the Spears girl and Palins daughter has jack to do with parenting or anything else, except your pathetic attempt to continue to bash Sarah Palin.
Stuck on stupid is a look I've just gotten used to seeing on you?
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Don't be obtuse.
The news here is that O'Reilly has been caught - yet again - having an ugly double standard when it suits him. That's all kindness is saying. Palin isn't the target here.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
There's something immensely satisfying
about watching O'Reilly drown in his own filth.
and Tucker handled that gotcha interview ver well.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
A 65 MPG goes on sale soon! But you can't have one?
Here's the story
.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
That just shows why Ford sucks
They don't want to sell it here because it runs on diesel and they think Americans don't like diesel?
So what? Sell it anyway.
In fact, market it as running on biodiesel.
qui tacet consentire
Americans "didn't like" seatbelts either
If they think they need to sell a lot of units they might be in trouble, but I'm sure their lobbyist could easily have good chances of increasing tax credits for people buying fuel efficient diesel cars like the one they are selling to make at least some imports available.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Don't tell my grandpa
He's one of those people who'll only buy Fords. He also has a decent amount of their stock in his portfolio.
Every time I mention Ford's stock prices he gets whipped up into a frenzy about how bad the company is run and how stupid they were to put all their money in SUVs and large trucks.
Ford Focus/Fusion commercials always crack me up when they talk about the "great gas mileage" and its not even over 30mpg highway.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The Gateway Pundit made an astute observation...
...when they
noticed the Obama Campaign released a new ad attacking Sarah Palin for supporting the Bridge to Nowhere.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Just about everyone voted for it
Wasn't it included in one of those massive omnibus bills? That's how those projects get approved in the first place -- a huge bill that includes everyone's pet project so nobody wants to see it shot down.
If they voted on these projects individually a lot of them would never get funded.
qui tacet consentire
Palin bills Alaska for 312 nights travel expenses while at home.
Yup....this is the Change we can all believe in my friends.
The SF Chronicle reports:
"Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has billed taxpayers for 312 nights spent in her own home during her first 19 months in office, charging a "per diem" allowance intended to cover meals and incidental expenses while traveling on state business."
If you liked the bush43 Administration and Jack Abramoff, you'll love an administration lead by McSame & Palin.
Wonder what the Bible says about fraudulently bilking the people you work for?
Everything you need to know about who Sarah Palin is in 4 min.
John Cole links to this video Sarah Palin in 4 minutes
.
Oh yea, it lists nothing but the facts & it's really fun.