Fighting "Islamic Terrorism" [Archive]

jasontkennedy

23rd July 2005, 22:33

If the American government had only the protection of its citizenry in mind, its response to 9/11 would have been both simple and direct -- expel all persons visiting in this country with a passport issued by a predominately Muslim country and refuse to admit any future visitors from such countries.

And further protection could be secured by refusing to admit anyone with a passport issued in an "Arabic-sounding" name. Or allow anyone with an "Arabic-sounding" name to buy a plane ticket in the U.S.

Drastic measures, to be sure, but they could have been done.

Yeah, passports. That is the answer. I beg your forgiveness in my missjudgement of how simple the solution is. You wish! Are you serious? Passports? Jesus, what a dolt! Have you ever been to any of the southern bordering states? I have. There are lots of people living there without passports. In fact, this has been happening for so long that it is almost necessary that I learn to speak spanish as a second language, and I live in St. Louis. I am not expressing any disapproval of living with hispanics, but that makes them being here no less illegal. How hard do you think it would be for a couple hundred of jihadist to crash the borders? I really can't believe that you think passports are the root of the solution. If you said this as a server of the public, 300 million americans would die laughing!

No "Patriot Act", no "Department of Homeland Security", and no invasions of anyplace were needed...or have served to do us any damn good whatsoever.

Quite the contrary, Americans are now the obvious and preferred targets of anybody with a gripe anywhere on the fucking planet.

(edit) I forgot to mention, I also think that the patriot act is a load of crap!

I am torn on this one. I am 60% in agreement, and I presonally am not in preferance of military action. However, I cannot call destruction of terroist training camps all bad. Again, these Jihadists are not hiding their agenda at all, they are quit plain about it. Kill americans, kill Christians, kill Jews. That is the agenda. It only takes one to read a few chapter of the "Holy Koran" to get the gist. I wonder if you ever have (read the Koran), or if you are arguing purly from speculation.

here are a few enlightening quotes!
"Koran 9:29 Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the jiziya (poll tax) with the hand of humility."

"Koran 8:12 Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them." - Alright, cut off infidel heads and fingers!

"Koran 9:5 "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

"Koran 9:73 Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their Home: an evil fate." - make war with anyone not islamic!

"Koran 4:144 Believers, do not choose the unbelievers rather than the faithful as your friends. Would you give Allah a clear proof against yourselves ?"

I could go on with hundreds of quotes just like this. As I have said before, as a person who has studied at least all of the major religions, I have never come across another religion so brutal. Take that notion, the clear will of their holy book, and connect it to the fact that jihadist are preaching this shit against America right now. That is why they are a threat. I am not arguing about what made them so mad at us (likely US imperialism suppressing their people), but none the less, jihadists are the sworn enemies of this people.

"Protection" of the American people was not and is not the motive of the "war against terrorism".

I disagree. I don't think that they are going about it the best way, but then again, your idea of the passports was equally laughable.

The Christian fascists -- an important part of the coalition around Bush -- believe that Islam is "idol worship" and want very much to destroy it. The "war on terrorism" is a great "cause" to disguise their real agenda.

Just as it serves to disguise the "neo-con" agenda of conquest and plunder.

Oh please. It is about people flying a fucking 747 into a building! In 1992 setting a bomb in the WTC. These people were clearly using symbolism in tha buildings they selected. The WTC represents economy, the pentagon represents military. They made their intentions plain, "down with america". Bush responded because they attacked us. this next sentence it key so , don't miss it. You have to ommit huge portions of American history to say that this is plain standard aggression against "idol worshippers". We were giving idol worshippers money in the 70's and 80's in Iraq to fight Iran. We were giving "idol worshippers" money and weapons when the taliban were fighting the soviets out of afghanastan. In fact, today the second largest military aid recipient from the US is a bunch of muslim "idol worshippers", Egypt. Your arguement doesn't hold water at all! If Bush and his ultra christians were trying to anihilate Islam, then why the feck are we giving Egypt nearly 4 billion a year in military aid? Oh yeah, cause they (mostly) aren't militant shite muslims looking to destroy the US. Big fucking hole in your theory, try again.

And finally, I think if you took 100 Jews or Christians, or people of just about any faith to a site full of Anne Coulter's quotes, I think you'd find that most disagree. She is a raving lunitic. Almost as dogmatic as someone who would want to destroy all religion, in a word, a fascist tyrannt.

jasontkennedy

23rd July 2005, 23:06

Lazar, you seem usually easier to reason with so, let me respond to a few points.

"Armies only serve to kill other people and steal their resources; it's been this way since recorded history and before."

so the polish armies resisting the germans in WWII were looking to steal german resources? The guerilla armies of El Salvador were only looking to kill people and steal resources? So the Native American armies resisting the invasion of the Europeans were only looking to kill and steal? Again, by making sweeping generalizations, you are begging people to bring up exceptions. The thing about life is that generalities don't usually work, do they? Racism is a generality. Anti semitism is based on generality. Sweeping statements usually make to weakening your logical arguement.

So tell me, enlightened one, what does bombing these places accomplish? The answer is obvious: more aggression. These people hate us so we bomb them to get them to like us? A better solution would have been to stop the spread of american imperalism. But america wouldnt have any of that!

Please do make the distinction between my stating their reason, and my approval or dissapproval of it. Of course I don't think that we should go over bombing places. I have seen the pictures of misdropped bombs. I know of the Somolian "Weapons plant" we destroyed that wound up being an asprin factory. I know about the hotel we blew up to "get" bin laden's "right hand man", and how there were over 600 civilian casualties. It is tragic. This sort of shit keeps me up at night, and news of it ruins my day, and yes, sometimes I morn about the sensless deaths. I am a leftist after all, aren't I? I think it is inexcusable brutality. I think that it is generating more terrorists than ever before, whom are going to be willing to go even further then their fathers. I did not say that the method of retaliation was favorable. I simply said it was not because they are islamic, but because they are hostile towards this establishment (America).

These people have every right to be against america. But these people whom you call "terrorists" have had their mind blurred. They don't know that the average american doesn't condone american imperialism. They are fed propaganda from their parents the same way their parents were fed it from their grandparents. They believe that all americans support this and that all americans are evil and this is why they condone this murder.

I agree, they have a right to be against america. After WWI, when the british empire came crashing down, the US sort of co-opted Saudi Arabia, didn't they? The Saudi Royal family exploits it's people to keep good relations and cheap oil for the american buisnesses, and this was partially from american heavy handedness. The same is true with the installation of the "Shah" in Iran from 1941-1979, exploiting his people, and murdering anyone who even vocallized opposition to him. In fact, we have co-opted people all over the world for our imperialist interests. Hundreds of times. Millions have died for the sake of our greed; all over the world. Dominican repulic, Indonesia, Chila, Argentine, Colombia, Cuba, Haiti, etc., etc., etc. In a word, yes they have a right ot be angry.

Yes, you are righ, they have had their minds "blurred", and it isn't from underestimating the average American. It is from the indoctrination of the Koran. Again, take some time and read their book. It is intrinsically brutal. Their hostility is toward the American agressors, but their book teaches them to destroy this entire nation. If they were wadging a war on the military/government, I'd understand. But they are killing civilians just the same, aren't they? (If you decide to say "well we are killing their civilians", I'd say "no shit, it's evil, and it doesn't excuse them killing our civilians")

You're right, this isn't definable as Christians against Muslims. Christian fundamentalists have taken control of the united states government and are using their power to wage a war on islam itself (not just funamentalism).

Again, like redstar, you've fallen for the partisan spin machines. If what you say is true, then we would not be arming Egypt, and many other islamic nations (Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc). Turkey was a good friend of ours during the cold war, and they are islamic. Reagan was also a fundimentalist Christian. The reason for hostility is not because they are islamic, but because they are hostile towards this empire.

MoscowFarewell

23rd July 2005, 23:43

It was said in the bible to never flaunt your faith and these fucks do it on a basis. So I believe they should be retaught from the beginning and explained to what flaunt means, so their moronic egos can get a away from "I'm a perfect christian, let me attempt to convert the masses with my praise of the lord and pretty pamphlets. " to "I love God, but I won't force it upon others to. "

Professor Moneybags

24th July 2005, 00:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2005, 08:34 AM
it creates more aggression when there is a popular following.
I doubt it. Militant islam does not even have a popular backing amongst muslims.

nazi germany did not have a popular backing.

Contrary to popular belief, it did.

jasontkennedy

24th July 2005, 01:02

Contrary to popular belief, it did.

Yes it did. They were commonly referred to by members of the opposing side as "axis" or "axis of evil"

MoscowFarewell

24th July 2005, 02:09

Its surprising how Nazis were able to go from small time to a party with the ability to sway the masses.

LSD

24th July 2005, 02:22

The Christian fascists -- an important part of the coalition around Bush -- believe that Islam is "idol worship" and want very much to destroy it. The "war on terrorism" is a great "cause" to disguise their real agenda.

Redstar, you're wrong on this one.

The war on terrorism is a cover to hide the real American agenda, but that agenda is not the "anhilation of Islam", it's economic imperialism.

Those muslims who are good little consumers and capitalist stooges (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc...) are friends, those who refuse are enemies. It's not about "faith", it's about power.

I could go on with hundreds of quotes just like this. As I have said before, as a person who has studied at least all of the major religions, I have never come across another religion so brutal.

Try Christianity.

Almost as dogmatic as someone who would want to destroy all religion, in a word, a fascist tyrannt.

That's a misuse of the phrase, and you know it.

I know hyperbole is fun, but let's try and remain rational. Someone, no matter what their ideological agenda, if they believe in pursuing that agenda through majoritarian and democratic methods, cannot be legitimately compared to a "fascist tyrannt" (sic).

Yes, redstar wants to destroy religion, and he's damn right for it. Religion, like all superstitions, is dangerous, reactionary, and destructive to human thought. But unless he proposes "forcing" his views on a disagreeing public, "fascist" is nothing more than a slur.

Surely you're above that.

Its surprising how Nazis were able to go from small time to a party with the ability to sway the masses.

It's not really that surprising.

The NSDAP offered "solutions" to the problems plaguing Germany and managed to ingeniusly craft their message to simultarneously appeal to several major sectors of society, even when their interests directly conflicted.

They were very good politicians. In a capitalist-republican system, that's all that matters.

redstar2000

24th July 2005, 03:21

Originally posted by jasontkennedy
Have you ever been to any of the southern bordering states? I have. There are lots of people living there without passports.

Indeed there are...and every last one of them is named Muhammad. :lol:

Sure...some Muslim terrorists could cross the border illegally to do their "dirty work". But, as it happened, the people responsible for 9/11 entered on tourist visas and mostly with passports from "Saudi" Arabia...all perfectly legal.

How hard do you think it would be for a couple hundred of jihadists to crash the borders?

Very. For one thing, they would need to be fluent in Spanish...in order to negotiate with their guides in northern Mexico -- and also reasonably fluent in English to be able to move freely in the U.S.

I'm not suggesting that it could not be done at all...but it would be extremely difficult and I don't think "a few hundred" could manage it.

Again, these Jihadists are not hiding their agenda at all, they are quit plain about it. Kill Americans, kill Christians, kill Jews. That is the agenda.

No...not exactly. What they wish to do, as far as I can tell, is remove Americans, Christians, and Jews from the Muslim world altogether. No doubt the more visionary of them imagine a "great Muslim Empire" -- a future super-power that might even attempt the conquest of Europe under the banners of Islam.

But right now, they just want our asses out of "their" part of the world.

Do you blame them?

It only takes one to read a few chapters of the "Holy Koran" to get the gist. I wonder if you ever have (read the Koran), or if you are arguing purely from speculation.

I have had occasions to look at portions of the Koran -- like all "holy books" it is full of blood and thunder against the unbelievers. Have a glance at "nice guy Jesus" in the Book of Revelations.

In terms of historical experience, Muslims have been generally less bloody than Christians -- there's no Muslim equivalent (so far) of witch-burning, Auschwitz, or Hiroshima.

Bush responded because they attacked us.

Awww...what a "hero"! Afghanistan did not "attack America". Neither did Iraq.

You call America's acts of criminal aggression against those countries "a response"?

And then call me a "knucklehead"??? :lol:

If Bush and his ultra-Christians were trying to annihilate Islam, then why the feck are we giving Egypt nearly 4 billion a year in military aid? Oh yeah, cause they (mostly) aren't militant Shiite Muslims looking to destroy the US. Big fucking hole in your theory, try again.

Try and grasp the difference between the "neo-con" agenda and the Christian fascist agenda...and how those two forces shape the over-all American agenda in foreign policy.

"Neo-cons" are imperial realists. They do not give a rat's ass about religion -- they would cheerfully support Osama Bin Laden as "King of Iraq" provided Osama would obey American orders.

Christian fascists see the coming decades as "the end times"..."their last chance" to conquer the world for Christianity -- they've "hitched their wagon" to the American Empire for "spiritual reasons". They believe (quite sincerely) that "God has chosen America to redeem the whole world...and welcome the return of Jesus."

The neo-cons, under Cheney, still dominate American foreign policy...invade, install quisling regimes, loot and plunder, etc. But it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the Christian fascists will always be the servants and never the masters...and if they do become the masters, then, yes, a formal crusade against Islam is both possible and a logical derivative of their ideology.

Onward, Christian Soldiers could become our new national anthem.

[Ann Coulter] is a raving lunatic.

So was Hitler. "Raving lunacy" does not disqualify one for high office in bourgeois "democracy".

These days, it might even be a "plus". :o

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

kingbee

24th July 2005, 12:03

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags+Jul 23 2005, 11:24 PM--> (Professor Moneybags @ Jul 23 2005, 11:24 PM)
[email protected] 23 2005, 08:34 AM
it creates more aggression when there is a popular following.
I doubt it. Militant islam does not even have a popular backing amongst muslims.

nazi germany did not have a popular backing.

Contrary to popular belief, it did. [/b]
- militant islam may not. but anti- western feelings might. especially when your family and possessions have been bombed. you think they'll be happy then?

- the nazi's got 33% of the vote to get in. is that popular?

jasontkennedy

24th July 2005, 16:28

Indeed there are...and every last one of them is named Muhammad. laugh.gif

Sure...some Muslim terrorists could cross the border illegally to do their "dirty work". But, as it happened, the people responsible for 9/11 entered on tourist visas and mostly with passports from "Saudi" Arabia...all perfectly legal.

And so you are claiming that the border patrol allows the illegal mexicans in with open arms? It doesn't matter if the people sneeking in are mexican, does it? What matters is that people are sneeking in. This can be done probably more easily in canada, or onto the coast. The point is that getting in isn't very difficult. My friend Issac is from Mexico, and wanted me to go with him to visit his family last christmas. He is not here legally. HIs plan to get back was to walk back into texas.

As it happened they came in on a tourist visa because it was the means of lest resistance. When someone has it set in their mind that they are willing to die for something, a tourist visa will not stop them. Hell, they could have hijacked a flight from Montreal to NYC, couldn't they. The point is that determination can really get you far. Even if they couldn't have gotten tourist visas, they would not have sat a home and said "damn, if only I could get a tourist visa, then my life plan would be complete". What do you think these people were thinking of when they prayed to Allah 6 times a day? How to get their their tourist visa? Please.....

Very. For one thing, they would need to be fluent in Spanish...in order to negotiate with their guides in northern Mexico -- and also reasonably fluent in English to be able to move freely in the U.S.

I'm not suggesting that it could not be done at all...but it would be extremely difficult and I don't think "a few hundred" could manage it.

fluent in Spanish? NO, just fluent in Money. Start waving about $300 US dollars, and it is amazing what those mexican smugglers will do. They don't care if you are Darth Vader, hand them $300 and say "America", they will get the picture.

based on the elementary approach towards your "remove the visas and save us all" approach, I am not surprised that you might not use your imagination with how these people sneek in. One problem though. They will use their imagination. I don't think that they are going to try to come riding in 200 strong in a line on camelback swinging simitars screaming "JIHAD!!!!". I would think that they would come in a few at a time, and not in groups. I would think that they need not speak spanish. I think that they would have contacts already inside the country that would aid them in concocting a more subtle plan. A feww hundred could make it in, and it could be done in less than a year. Security is tight at airports, but harbors are not. Borders are not. Luggage compartments on cargo trains are not (especially in canada). Getting in this country is not hard at all.

No...not exactly. What they wish to do, as far as I can tell, is remove Americans, Christians, and Jews from the Muslim world altogether. No doubt the more visionary of them imagine a "great Muslim Empire" -- a future super-power that might even attempt the conquest of Europe under the banners of Islam.

But right now, they just want our asses out of "their" part of the world.

Do you blame them?

Your knees must have been (proverbially) about to buckle as you typed this huh? Quit sugar coating it. They don't want to remove us. Nowhere in the Koran does it say to remove people. You HAVE NOT read the Koran, and you are making this extremely clear. The Koran is specific in instucting murder and death. Did you NOT read the quotes I posted, or did they not suit your needs, so you ignored them? Jihadist are militant assholes that wish to literally uphold the Koran's position on infidel clensing.

I have had occasions to look at portions of the Koran -- like all "holy books" it is full of blood and thunder against the unbelievers. Have a glance at "nice guy Jesus" in the Book of Revelations.

I cannot believe you are trying to pull this off. Pandering to you typical anti christian rhetoric really has nothing to do with Jihadists, it only serves to be your means of slipping off topic. Don't dodge the bullet. We aren't asking for a critical comparison between the the Bible and the Koran. We are addressing the inherently brutal nature of Jihadists. Please tell me where the Bible gives it's adherants perinnial advice to kill others. You will find versus where God gave specific instruction to the Jews to kill people, but I doubt you will find verses that condone killing for all generations to come. There is no other book like the Koran. Period.

But that isn't the point is it? This is, I am finding a classic move for you Redstar. Someone says "X is terrible" and you say, "well how is y different from x??" That is your subversion of so many good points, because you know they are going to say "y is defferent than x, reasons". By then it is done. You have successfully switched the topic from critisizing "x" to attacking/defending "y". If you ask me, it is dishonorable. Stay on topic.

Awww...what a "hero"! Afghanistan did not "attack America". Neither did Iraq.

You call America's acts of criminal aggression against those countries "a response"?

And then call me a "knucklehead"??? laugh.gif

Again, slippin word in my mouth again, aren't you. ;)
I didn't talk about Iraq at all, did I? I was talking about destroying terroist trainging camps in afghanistan, and confronting their taliban about housing terrorists. I never condoned the war in Iraq. I don't deny our being in Iraq as criminal, I have made that arguement many times. I see action taken against Al Quida as justified, being that they flew planes into civilian buildings, and killed 1000's of innocent people. I also see no problem with British or any other any other European nations that have suffered from suicide bombers, or other acts of terrorism as justified in seeking information about their aggressors, and trying to address them. But that sort of makes it sound like I am not in favor of planes flying overhead and dropping bombs, doesn't it? I am in favor of trained assasins, specialty units, to remove terrorist traing camps, hide outs, etc. I believe that every innocent life is precious. Colateral damage should be a huge driving force, and it clearly has not been. Brute force has.

The neo-cons, under Cheney, still dominate American foreign policy...invade, install quisling regimes, loot and plunder, etc. But it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the Christian fascists will always be the servants and never the masters...and if they do become the masters, then, yes, a formal crusade against Islam is both possible and a logical derivative of their ideology.

So, we give Egypt $4 billion, and yet the war on terror is a war on Islam? This is the sort of conclusion one would draw when they think that Ann Coulter represents the heart beat of contemporary Christian consensus.

In terms of historical experience, Muslims have been generally less bloody than Christians -- there's no Muslim equivalent (so far) of witch-burning, Auschwitz, or Hiroshima.

First of all lunitics exist outside of their convictions. People have horrible things in the name of God(s) in every religion or even in athiesm. It doesn't take a belief to make a lunitic, it takes a lunitic to make a lunitic. The (destorted) belief only acts as a catalist. One would not, for example read the complete Bhagavad Gita. or the Bible, or the Tao Te Ching, cover to cover, and then walk away with the impression that it is killing time. The Bible says "vengence is mine, Saith the Lord". You mentioned Jesus in Revelation. Notice that you have the Deity exacting revenge, not the adherants. The distinction is important. Again, the Koran instructs all of it's believers that it is to be spread by the sword. That is how islam has always been spread, by the sword. Muslims have not been less bloody. Their genocide is internally more violent, killing and abusing their women. Did you know that is a woman is raped in many Islamic countries, she is murdered publically for tempting the man? Woman are murdered for adultery. People's hands are removed for stealing food, even if they are starving to death. What did Jesus say about these things? Re-read Matthew chapter 5, and come back to me. I know you would love to lump these together. Even if you could, it is still off of topic. In fact, I shouldn't even be responding to your rhetoric. Comparing y to x does not change x's status.

I will remind you that Stalin Killed millions of his own people. Mao killed millions (some say 40 mil some say 80 mil, much more than Hitler) of his people. Pol Pot was really nice to his Buddhist citizens, right? Atheists can do no wrong can they? Did you know that Hitler gave Mussolini several nietzsche books, he was a huge fan. The biggest murderers of the 20th century were Atheists.

QUOTE
[Ann Coulter] is a raving lunatic.

So was Hitler. "Raving lunacy" does not disqualify one for high office in bourgeois "democracy".

These days, it might even be a "plus". ohmy.gif

Hitler was a politician, Ann Coulter is a colunist. I will print out a page of her quotes, and show them to 100 Jews and 100 Christians, and log their response if you'd like. But, I get the feeling that you'd like to keep things more general than that. Because that is the only legs your arguement has, when conclusions are broad and untestable.

When you respond, stay on the fucking topic. Don't depend on your anti-christian rhetoric to somhow vendicate your righteously angered terrorist buddies :angry:

redstar2000

25th July 2005, 03:40

Originally posted by jasontkennedy+--> (jasontkennedy)The point is that getting in isn't very difficult.[/b]

Then you make it harder...instead of sending troops to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, you patrol your own borders.

That's just if you want to defend "innocent" American lives, of course.

Quit sugar coating it. They don't want to remove us.

Well, that's a testable hypothesis...we get the fuck out of the Middle East and then we see what happens.

If they still come here and blow people up...then you were right and I was wrong.

Someone says "X is terrible" and you say, "well how is y different from x??"

Yes, I do that with considerable frequency.

Why?

Because it's a really terrific way to expose hypocrisy.

Like yours.

If you ask me, it is dishonorable.

I didn't ask you. :lol:

I was talking about destroying terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, and confronting their Taliban about housing terrorists.

But the terrorists did not come from Afghanistan.

Nor was the kind of "training" available in Afghanistan of any relevance to 9/11. The important training for the perpetrators of 9/11 came from instructors at American flying schools.

It is most probable that the people trained in the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan were (and likely still are) learning how to construct and detonate small bombs...and that Al-Qaeda's real target was "Saudi" Arabia -- especially Americans in that country -- and its current target is American forces in Iraq.

Indeed, I think it unlikely that Al-Qaeda itself even knew that 9/11 was being planned...though they were not shy about taking "credit" for it. There are "a whole bunch" of tiny and apparently autonomous groups operating under the label of "Al-Qaeda"...a reason, by the way, that you will never "catch them all".

I am in favor of trained assassins, specialty units, to remove terrorist training camps, hide outs, etc.

Ok...but remember that anyone who they assassinate "will be" a "terrorist" without regard to the facts of the matter. And anyplace they blow up "will be" a "terrorist training camp"...again regardless of the facts of the matter.

A word of friendly advice: don't attend wedding parties in Afghanistan or Iraq...only "terrorists" go to them now. :lol:

This is the sort of conclusion one would draw when they think that Ann Coulter represents the heart beat of contemporary Christian consensus.

She is embarrassing, isn't she?

Just goes around blurting out what so many "in high places" think but would rather not publicly disclose at this time.

Perhaps you'd find this fellow more acceptable...

Denver Post
Tancredo won't back down

No apology for discussing retaliation on Muslim holy sites

Washington - Rep. Tom Tancredo refused Monday to back down from his statement Friday suggesting that the United States might respond to a radical Islamic terrorist attack by bombing Muslim holy sites.

Tancredo is a member of the House International Relations Committee.

Bombing Mecca is not really necessary, of course. Just occupy it for a couple of days, remove the "holy meteorite" (by cargo helicopter), and drop it in the Indian Ocean.

And bombing the "Dome of the Rock" could cause difficulties for the Israelis...it's in the middle of Jerusalem.

Just ask the Israelis to demolish it. :lol:

You have some very interesting "friends". :)

Notice that you have the Deity exacting revenge, not the adherents. The distinction is important.

No it isn't. Those who massacre "in the Lord's Name" can always claim to be "doing what God would do"...if he was not busy elsewhere. :lol:

Otherwise, why is the history of Christianity a history of massacre?

Muslims have not been less bloody.

Deny it if you wish...but it's the simple historical truth.

The biggest murderers of the 20th century were Atheists.

You are an ignoramus. :(

When you respond, stay on the fucking topic.

This thread has long departed its original topic (something that has greatly irritated its author).

It was, in fact, yourself that seized upon a passing remark of mine to launch your verbal "crusade against (Islamic) terrorism"...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291906285 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=37467&view=findpost&p=1291906285)

I suppose, if pressed, I could split the topic off from the original thread...want me to do that?

But it's not going to help you all that much.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

jasontkennedy

25th July 2005, 05:16

Then you make it harder...instead of sending troops to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, you patrol your own borders.

That's just if you want to defend "innocent" American lives, of course.

You are definately onto something. I agree, stronger border patrol is needed. However, you are presupposing that playing defense is the correct prorogative, I would disagree. If I was president, even of a socialist nation, and some group of hostiles decided to start murdering my civilians by the thousands, I'd attack them where they sleep. Sometimes fighting calls for that. Sometimes you cannot be altruistic about your enemy. You can't win a boxing match by blocking. The enemy getting past your gaurd is inevitable.

Well, that's a testable hypothesis...we get the fuck out of the Middle East and then we see what happens.

If they still come here and blow people up...then you were right and I was wrong.

another good point. I think that we shouldn't be there. Again, I wouldn't blame them for attacking our military or government, as they (our govt) are imperialist. Killing thousands of civilians on the other hand calls for action in my book.

Yes, I do that with considerable frequency.

Why?

Because it's a really terrific way to expose hypocrisy.

Like yours.

No, it is a weak way of avoiding a great point. And it sounds like you are assuming that I am an adherant of Judism or Christianity, as those are your "get me out of any bind, so I don't have to backpeddel" topics of favor.

I didn't ask you. laugh.gif

and neither do I care. :D

But the terrorists did not come from Afghanistan.

Nor was the kind of "training" available in Afghanistan of any relevance to 9/11. The important training for the perpetrators of 9/11 came from instructors at American flying schools.

It is most probable that the people trained in the Al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan were (and likely still are) learning how to construct and detonate small bombs...and that Al-Qaeda's real target was "Saudi" Arabia -- especially Americans in that country -- and its current target is American forces in Iraq.

Indeed, I think it unlikely that Al-Qaeda itself even knew that 9/11 was being planned...though they were not shy about taking "credit" for it. There are "a whole bunch" of tiny and apparently autonomous groups operating under the label of "Al-Qaeda"...a reason, by the way, that you will never "catch them all".

If Al Qaeda was willing to take credit then they were inviting retaliation. Whether the people were trained in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan is irrelavant, if the network is claming responsibility, then they become the target. This is especially true (the transcending of national political borders, that is) because Al Queada is not a politically ruling body. In that sense their infrastructure does not have to be limited to one nation, does it?

I will not confront YOUR speculation that they were not training in Afghanistan vs. Saudi, it is inconsequential.

I agree, we will never catch them all, but sometimes if you removethe head, the snake dies. This is a known fact of military history. I am not saying always, but frequently. We may not need them all. So, when was the last time that they attacked our civilians after the "war on terror" began? Oh yeah they haven't. There hasn't been one domestic terrorist attack (that I am aware of) since 9/11. Nick berg could be mentioned, but he was relatively local.

Ok...but remember that anyone who they assassinate "will be" a "terrorist" without regard to the facts of the matter. And anyplace they blow up "will be" a "terrorist training camp"...again regardless of the facts of the matter.

A word of friendly advice: don't attend wedding parties in Afghanistan or Iraq...only "terrorists" go to them now. laugh.gif

I agree that we have killed alot of the wrong people. I didn't express an approval for our military raids and such. A specialty force is different than an infintry. I am not talking about storming weddings and schools and hospitals. John Kerry had a moderately better approach if you listened to the debates. He too saw a need for assault, but favored higher tech means, and more precision than military brute forve and missles. He prefered covert operations to battles. I think he was closer to right about how it should be handled.

Just goes around blurting out what so many "in high places" think but would rather not publicly disclose at this time.

Perhaps you'd find this fellow more acceptable...

QUOTE (Denver Post)
Tancredo won't back down

No apology for discussing retaliation on Muslim holy sites

Washington - Rep. Tom Tancredo refused Monday to back down from his statement Friday suggesting that the United States might respond to a radical Islamic terrorist attack by bombing Muslim holy sites.

Tancredo is a member of the House International Relations Committee.

Bombing Mecca is not really necessary, of course. Just occupy it for a couple of days, remove the "holy meteorite" (by cargo helicopter), and drop it in the Indian Ocean.

And bombing the "Dome of the Rock" could cause difficulties for the Israelis...it's in the middle of Jerusalem.

Just ask the Israelis to demolish it. laugh.gif

You have some very interesting "friends". smile.gif

So many in high places think that we should kill all the leaders and Christianize the places? I agree, there are lunitics, but to imply that it is the view held by the masses is equivilant to saying that Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot represented the socialist's view on opposing the state or embrassing religion. Redstar, I really (not for the sake of arguement, but for the sake of enrichment) want you to understand that lunitics exist with or without religion. It transcends and can be exclusive from a belief in God. There are (have been) plenty of Atheist or socialist butchers. And I don't think that those butchers reflect the views of most Atheists or Socialists.

Please stop quoting lunitics and implying that they are voicing what most people think. Again, I am willing to ask hundreds of people (religious ones even) about their feelings about these sorts of statements, I am sure you will find your poster children lunitics as not favorable by average people of faith in the same respect that people on this site view Pol Pot as a lunitic. The only thing that you are proving is that people can be reactionary instead of rational and logical. And I can proove it happens to Atheists too. All you have to do is hurt someone, and you will quickly see if that person is reactionary of rational.

You are an ignoramus. sad.gif

Who killed more than Mao? Who killed more than Stalin? Who killed more than Pol Pot?

And by the way. Hitler may have been raised Catholic, but had abandoned religion (strongly due to Darwin and Neitschze) by the time he won the election. here are some Hitler quotes to have fun with. Enjoy

Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise. Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called Hitler's Table Talk (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953).
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....
"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....
"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday

"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....
"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....
"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....
"Christianity <is> the liar....
"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night

"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

21st October, 1941, midday

"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....
"The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....
"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the
instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight

"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe
transubstantiation>....
"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)

14th December, 1941, midday

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....
"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism,
under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner

"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday

"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."
"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)

He's in your camp too partner :angry:
And he talks about religion a lot like you do redstar. Actually, he is less aggressive. He just wants to die a natural death. I think you might make him blush! :lol:

This thread has long departed its original topic (something that has greatly irritated its author).

It was, in fact, yourself that seized upon a passing remark of mine to launch your verbal "crusade against (Islamic) terrorism"...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291906285

I suppose, if pressed, I could split the topic off from the original thread...want me to do that?

But it's not going to help you all that much.

and before that your were on your destroy religion world wide tirade. But none the less, you make a point. Yes, let's break off from this thread.

jasontkennedy

25th July 2005, 05:58

I thought a little insight into the Khmer Rouge might add power to my argument regarding lunitic brutality being a human thing and not a religous thing. Additionally, adding to the point that atheists were the biggest murderers of the 20th century. Here is a quote from wikipedia.com search: khmer rouge

The Khmer Rouge (Khmer: , pronounced Khmaey Krahom or /kʰmaːe kɾɒːhɒːm/; French: Khmer Rouge in the masculine singular, Khmers Rouges in the plural) was a Communist organization which ruled Cambodia from 1975 to 1979. The term "Khmer Rouge," meaning "Red Khmer" in French, was coined by former king and prime minister Norodom Sihanouk and became widely used in the English-speaking world. The official name of the Khmer Rouge was the Communist Party of Cambodia, later the Party of Democratic Kampuchea. It was also known as the Communist Party of Kampuchea, the Khmer Communist Party and the National Army of Democratic Kampuchea.

The Khmer Rouge regime is remembered mainly for the deaths of an estimated 1.7 million people, through execution, starvation and forced labor. It was one of the most violent regimes of the 20th century often compared with the regimes of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong. In terms of the number of people killed as a proportion of the population of the country it ruled and time in power, it was probably the most lethal regime of the 20th century. Nevertheless, only three of the Khmer Rouge leaders have been imprisoned since their rule ended, one on unrelated charges.

And there is lots more there to read. Oh, and I took the liberty to embolden one particular sentence that I really liked.

violencia.Proletariat

25th July 2005, 06:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:16 AM

So, when was the last time that they attacked our civilians after the "war on terror" began? Oh yeah they haven't. There hasn't been one domestic terrorist attack (that I am aware of) since 9/11. Nick berg could be mentioned, but he was relatively local.

yet you say its very easy to cross the border. and im sure there are militant islamics in america, that could attack at any time. so the war on terror hasnt done shit to stop that.

redstar2000

25th July 2005, 06:33

Originally posted by jasontkennedy
However, you are presupposing that playing defense is the correct prerogative...

Indeed I am...that's what it means to "defend the safety of innocent Americans".

That, in fact, is not the agenda of the Bush regime...and is almost an irrelevant consideration.

The "neo-con" agenda (including nearly all of the Democrats) is, as I noted, conquest and plunder. The Christian fascists -- that is, the real Christians -- want to go even further.

I'd attack them where they sleep.

But since you don't really know who "they" are, you'll just kill some people while they're sleeping and afterwards label them "terrorists"...fabricating such "evidence" as you think appropriate.

Like cops do.

Killing thousands of civilians on the other hand calls for action in my book.

Otherwise? Your "manhood" would be in question, perhaps?

I agree, we will never catch them all, but sometimes if you remove the head, the snake dies.

Problems with metaphors, eh? :D

Snakes always die when their heads are removed.

Political groups frequently wither if their leadership is removed...though that's not always the case.

Spontaneous movements are almost totally unaffected by "leader removal"...they don't even have "leaders" in the sense that you're using the word. You could catch Osama Bin Laden and shoot him immediately...and he would instantly become the most famous martyr in the Muslim world. People would name their kids after him.

And unfortunately for you, some of those kids would do their very best to live up to their names.

So, when was the last time that they attacked our civilians after the "war on terror" began?

For all I know, 10 minutes ago. But they did it in the Middle East where there are plenty of American civilians available for targeting.

Redstar, I really (not for the sake of argument, but for the sake of enrichment) want you to understand that lunatics exist with or without religion.

That's not controversial...although the correlation between "lunacy" and religious belief is probably quite high.

But do you really just dismiss the authors of religious massacres as simply "lunatics"? After all, you must be pretty highly esteemed among both your peers and your supporters to order a massacre and have people carry it out. You don't look "like a lunatic" to them.

And by the way. Hitler may have been raised Catholic, but had abandoned religion (strongly due to Darwin and Nietzsche) by the time he won the election.

No, Hitler did not "abandon religion", he abandoned Christianity. He was, like many leading Nazis, a monotheist -- a believer in a "God" that rewarded demonstrated "racial" superiority. It is quite true that his views were influenced indirectly by Darwin and Nietzsche...through his readings not of the originals but the primitive racialist and anti-semitic "interpretations" made available to him during his late youth in Vienna. It's rather unlikely that he ever even saw any of Darwin or Nietzsche's books...much less read them.

Nietzsche, for example, despised anti-semitism and German nationalism. Darwin did believe in superior and inferior "races" but I don't think he was ever "on record" in favor of "Aryan" supremacy...and he may even have never heard of the idea. (In Darwin's time, I believe "Aryan" was still a linguistic term for Sanskrit and its daughter languages.)

And [Hitler] talks about religion a lot like you do redstar. Actually, he is less aggressive. He just wants [it] to die a natural death.

No, his comments are all related to the death of Christianity, not religion in general.

And his motives are clearly very different from mine.

:lol: to you too.

(And by the way, you neglected to post the link to your quotations from Hitler.)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Capitalist Lawyer

25th July 2005, 13:24

Who killed more than Mao? Who killed more than Stalin? Who killed more than Pol Pot?

Doesn't surprise me that Redstar dodged this statement.......remember guy, they weren't "real" atheists.... :lol:

Since they use that argument to dodge accusations of them being communists/leftists/etc....then I guess we can say all the massacres by captialists and fascists etc weren't the committed by TRUE capitalists.

Zingu

25th July 2005, 13:40

Who killed more than Mao? Who killed more than Stalin? Who killed more than Pol Pot?

We've been over this before....about the real figures of how many people were killed, I'm no expert at it, but I'm sure some Leninist will pop up and provide the answer any second now since you've mentioned it. Even though I wouldn't call Pol Pot a Marxist. :lol:

As for who has killed more? Easy one, religon.

Professor Moneybags

25th July 2005, 14:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:33 AM
The "neo-con" agenda (including nearly all of the Democrats) is, as I noted, conquest and plunder.
How can you plunder what was already yours ?

LSD

25th July 2005, 16:03

How can you plunder what was already yours ?

Moneybags, I thought you opposed the war in Iraq? (maybe I'm confusing you for somone else)

But if not, I'm shocked that you're taking the line of the Chinese Communist Party. We didn't invade Iraq, it was always ours. :lol:

Since they use that argument to dodge accusations of them being communists/leftists/etc....then I guess we can say all the massacres by captialists and fascists etc weren't the committed by TRUE capitalists.

The difference is that the "communist" countries you can point do do not fit into any definition of a communisty society. Furthermore, the actions of the individuals in question clearly do not meet any standard of "communist" behaviour.

No one claims that the USSR or the PRC or the DPRK were actual communist societies!

On the other hand, nearly all of the capitalist nations we point to today, do have functional capitalist economices. They are not "led" by "capitalist parties" they are actually capitalist.

Hey, be proud! Your ideology is practiced all over the world. Of course the downside to this, is that everyone can see that it doesn't work.

jasontkennedy

25th July 2005, 22:19

Indeed I am...that's what it means to "defend the safety of innocent Americans".

How would you defend the earth from a comet if we knew it was going to colloide with us in it's next pass? You go out and prevent the attack. Preemptive strike against Iraq was bullshit. They did not threaten us, nor attack us, it was a tragic abuse of power. Against Al Qaeda it is another story altogether isn't it? In fact it wasn't preemptive in that case, it was retaliation. Certainly when your enemy is secretive, an army, foriegn or domestic is not the answer. The answer is not some police state, with armed gaurds on every street of america. The soluition is a covert operation group with strong support, and absolutely minimal air tactics. When fighing a giant army, use a giant army, when fighting a silent assassin, use a silent assassin.

The Christian fascists -- that is, the real Christians -- want to go even further.

SO now the Atheist is qualified to use some sort of discernment, maybe a magic water finding stick? "That is, the real Christians" <_< More of your typical substanceless rhetoric. Trying to get a reaction again? Again, I offer, if you'd like I will survey 100+ people of both Christian and Jewish convictions, and see what most of them think of your lunitics (Ann Coulter, etc.) and post the results. I could start quoting Pol Pot on behalf of Socialism. Do you think Pol Pot fairly represents Communist Ideals? My God, have a non rhetorical argument.

But since you don't really know who "they" are, you'll just kill some people while they're sleeping and afterwards label them "terrorists"...fabricating such "evidence" as you think appropriate.

Like cops do.

Nice departure from the context. You are doing a great job explaining some of the bullshit that the Bush administration is doing, but I am not defending the Bush administration, am I? I am stating that we are justified in attacking hostiles that have attacked our civilians. I am speaking to an ideal of self defense, and you are blurring my point by trying to glue me to BUsh's exploiting that justification. We ARE justified to work at eliminating Al Qaeda, because they have attacked us, our civilians, and they are taking credit. Whatever happens to them, I will not shed any tears. I do however have tears for the innocent that we are slaying over there. Again, I am not defending the bush administration's efforts, I am defending the position that we are entitled to fight back justly. Again, (I feel like a broken record) I think that Kerry had some good ideas on how to handle the situation. It is almost always better to exercise cunning tact rather than brute force. For the Nth time, I don't not support Bush. He is a bourgeois asshole imperialist.

QUOTE
Killing thousands of civilians on the other hand calls for action in my book.

Otherwise? Your "manhood" would be in question, perhaps?

This has nothing to do with manhood. This has nothing to do with flexing. You are desensatized and bitter. Maybe you don't see civilian casualty as a big deal, as long as it is americans, eh? Sure, you cry for those poor murdered innocents in Afghanastan, and those militants, who can blame em right? But your own fellow citizens, eh who cares right? When people start striking innocents, whether micro or macro scales, it is time for that person (people) to be incapacitated. When a group of people decide to start killing civilians who aren't trying to hurt anyone else, it stops being macho. It becomes a prevention of tragedy.

Spontaneous movements are almost totally unaffected by "leader removal"...they don't even have "leaders" in the sense that you're using the word. You could catch Osama Bin Laden and shoot him immediately...and he would instantly become the most famous martyr in the Muslim world. People would name their kids after him.

And unfortunately for you, some of those kids would do their very best to live up to their names.

you are claiming that Islamic Jihad is a spontaeous movement? Please define that for me. I am not arguing that it is not. It just seems that from a perspective of symantics, that you are really stretching the definition of "spontaneous".

Additionally, islamic reationarys are an inherent part of islam. All you can do is fight it when it arises, because it will keep striking until you do. Remember, The Koran gives them instruction to try and conquer the whole world whether we provoke them or not. Leaving them alone will never stop them. All you can try to do is keep them (I am referring to Jihadists not all Muslims) trepid enough to leave people alone. Kind of like scaring a roach under a refridgerator. Also, knocking out their financial access is beneficial.

That's not controversial...although the correlation between "lunacy" and religious belief is probably quite high.

But do you really just dismiss the authors of religious massacres as simply "lunatics"? After all, you must be pretty highly esteemed among both your peers and your supporters to order a massacre and have people carry it out. You don't look "like a lunatic" to them.

You know as well as I do that most massacres are the result of antagonism. Antagonism is the very same cause for the death of so many at the hands of communists and atheists in the 20th century, they called it revolution I believe. One could even make that argument for Hitler, and his nationalism (after all the jews controled most of the money and buisnesses in Germany, and he wanted to revolt against their exclusion of the indigenous german people, to whom he believed, the land belonged to.) Although antagonism is not just cause for massacre. Massacre is tragic. The way that you rally support behind you is to offer people freedom from their oppressors. Every argument has two sides. Many times the history books erase the "side" of the loser. So, many times we are left with the destortion of the victors as "incontroversial history", when it is not objective at all.

Please give me some specific examples to work with. I am not claiming that they don't exist. Also, for once, considering that you dismiss ALL faiths as reactionary, and I have never disclosed my specific convictions (if I have any at all), please vary your examples beyond Christianity and Judism. They aren't the only religions out there.

No, Hitler did not "abandon religion", he abandoned Christianity. He was, like many leading Nazis, a monotheist -- a believer in a "God" that rewarded demonstrated "racial" superiority. It is quite true that his views were influenced indirectly by Darwin and Nietzsche...through his readings not of the originals but the primitive racialist and anti-semitic "interpretations" made available to him during his late youth in Vienna. It's rather unlikely that he ever even saw any of Darwin or Nietzsche's books...much less read them.

Nietzsche, for example, despised anti-semitism and German nationalism. Darwin did believe in superior and inferior "races" but I don't think he was ever "on record" in favor of "Aryan" supremacy...and he may even have never heard of the idea. (In Darwin's time, I believe "Aryan" was still a linguistic term for Sanskrit and its daughter languages.)

You are correct about the origin of Aryan. I actually came across it several times while reading the Bhagavad Gita. And after further checking, I think you got me on the monotheist point. But, you have to admit, Darwin is sort of embarassing isn't he?
I mean especially if you get ahold of an original copy of "Origin", before he modified it 75,000 times to it's current edition. That man was just disgusting.Real atheists are all really racist, like Darwin (prodding) right? Just like all "real" Chrisitians wanna kill all the muslims?

(And by the way, you neglected to post the link to your quotations from Hitler.)

So I did, my apology. I don't normally do that either. I just spent a few minutes looking, and can't find it now. My history has been erased, so I am at a loss. However, I do believe that I provided the name of the book that he quotes are from, if you'd care to check for legitimacy. Although, I would guess that you'd know by now that I am not going to fabricate resources.

And now to Zingu,

We've been over this before....about the real figures of how many people were killed, I'm no expert at it, but I'm sure some Leninist will pop up and provide the answer any second now since you've mentioned it. Even though I wouldn't call Pol Pot a Marxist. laugh.gif

Yeah, and you can go over it until you are blue in the face. Whether Mao killed 32 million or 80 million, at that point I don't think that there is a quantifiable difference in brutality. The same it true for Stalin and Pol Pot. You sound like one of the idiots over on stormfront.com (great place to go and bash idiots) who either say "there was no holocaust" or "the numbers are inflated". Killing millions is killing millions, and removes one from hero status. Whatever the real numbers are, the "great communist leaders" of the last century were butchers. Now that makes for an interesting point. See how I separate the ideal from the people who commit atrocities in it's name? See how that works? I could just lead you to my OBVIOUS parallel point, but I'll just see if you figure it out. (I am sure you will)

Capitalist Lawyer

25th July 2005, 23:04

As for who has killed more? Easy one, religon.

But it sounds like you're not in denial about the number of deaths attributed to socialism?

This is what it sounds like, "Yeah, me may have killed millions over the course of a single century......but religion has killed more."

synthesis

26th July 2005, 00:02

This whole "well, ideology X killed 30 million more than ideology Y" line of debate is tired and meaningless.

You cannot simply attribute every single preventable death to the ideology of the regime under which the people died. It has to be legitimately caused by the ideology itself - which means that the civil wars and famines which struck undeveloped communist societies no more than any undeveloped capitalist or theocratic nation cannot be added to the Communist "total."

And as for the various governmental murder sprees, it is obvious that Marxism itself cannot provide any justification for such totalitarianism. That state-oriented deviation known as Leninism does indeed provide the conditions for tyranny to manipulate the masses, much in the same way that religion provides the condition for priests to molest small children, but a lot of Communists support a much less statist structure.

Anyways, the reason us pro-reason advocates can rationally attribute events such as Dresden and Hiroshima to Christianity is to expose the impotency of the hypocrites' claims: for all their hooting and hollering about morality and how one should behave towards his neighbor, the Christian masses still find nothing inherently wrong about the deliberately indiscriminate murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, time and time again.

Even then, some of the worst atrocities of the last millenium, such as the Inquisition and the Crusades - from whence the phrase "kill them all, as God will know his own" arose - were directly sanctioned by the Christian leadership, who doubtlessly had "Biblical" justification to do it.

You cannot make similar claims about Communism, for only quasi-Communist social institutions ever had even a miniscule amount of time to endow the masses with a proletarian morality, whereas Christianity has had two thousand years to subjugate the world's peoples to its doctrines, and religion itself has had at least six thousand.

redstar2000

26th July 2005, 07:05

Well, as you can see, jason, the cappies have taken the thread off in yet another direction.

That's why I don't usually split threads unless people really want me to...especially in the Opposing Ideologies forum where the cappies "rant at will".

But to some of your points...

How would you defend the earth from a comet if we knew it was going to collide with us in its next pass?

A comet is simply responding to gravity; I don't think there's any real parallel between such a natural event and Islamic fundamentalism.

The mind-set of the people who join Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-inspired groups is obviously as alien to me as it is to you...but it does not look as if "pre-emptive strikes" have any effect on them. Or at least not the kind of effect you're looking for -- to make them "afraid" to attack America or Americans.

From what they say, martyrdom for Allah is something they consider desirable...and their actions seemingly confirm this.

When you really think about it, that's the only way that "suicide bombing" makes any "sense" at all.

Thus the invasion of Afghanistan (or anyplace else) will not do anything to "stop terrorism"...these people "don't think in those terms".

Which makes them, by our standards, "lunatics".

Now, are they "rational lunatics" or not? Would they be content, as I think, with American withdrawal from the Muslim world? Or would they, as you appear to think, press their attacks...dreaming of conquering "the whole world" for Islam?

As I said earlier, I have no doubt that their more visionary adherents might well dream of a great Muslim Empire that could contend with the U.S., the E.U., and China for global supremacy. But surely they must grasp the fact that such an empire cannot be built with car-bombs and suicides.

They must begin by winning power in a number of Muslim countries, merging them into a "new caliphate", etc. This means a furious domestic struggle for them...which we have seen in a number of Muslim countries already.

Their analysis seems to be a correct one...they cannot win "at home" until the American imperialists and their lackeys are driven out of the Muslim world.

If that's the case, then bombing New York or London is simply a "symbolic attack" -- they don't want to conquer the U.S. or the U.K., they just want us to clear out of "their turf" so they can struggle directly against "bad Muslims".

As soon as we leave, they will lose interest in us entirely...we will cease to be "their main enemy".

But as long as we stay, we will be their main enemy...they have to get rid of us before they can "reform" the Muslim world and return it to "the pure faith".

"That is, the real Christians"

You don't like that phrase...why not?

The real Christians are Christian fascists just as real Muslims are members or sympathizers of Al Qaeda, the mullahs in Iran, etc.

These are the people who take their religion seriously.

Many and perhaps most Christians are not serious about their religion at all. I've seen plenty of them come to this board and reveal outstanding ignorance of their own "holy book". A real Christian not only "knows his Bible" but believes it fully, defends it vigorously, etc.

Just like a real Muslim does with the Qu'ran.

You think they are "lunatics" -- and by rational standards, they certainly are.

Religion is not rational, by definition.

So when you hear someone who claims to profess this or that faith and then starts babbling about "tolerance for all faiths", etc., then you should know that they're faking it. Probably unconsciously...but still a fake.

A "true believer" in any religion is always ready to convert the heathen...or kill him.

I am stating that we are justified in attacking hostiles that have attacked our civilians.

If your government could be depended on to accurately distinguish between genuine "hostiles" and innocent bystanders, then perhaps you'd have a point.

But your government can't do that...it just murders a random selection of people and afterwards says they were "hostiles".

The whole world knows it ain't so.

Again, I am not defending the Bush administration's efforts, I am defending the position that we are entitled to fight back justly.

The people directly responsible for 9/11 are all dead. Who are you fighting against?

Again, I think that Kerry had some good ideas on how to handle the situation.

Kerry promised to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq.

You are desensitized and bitter.

Guilty.

I plead extenuating circumstances though -- a whole lifetime in imperial America. :o

you are claiming that Islamic Jihad is a spontaneous movement?

Pretty much, yeah. Hundreds of small groups, no central structure, no "chain of command", located all over the Muslim world with groups in Europe as well...it might as well be spontaneous.

Additionally, Islamic reactionaries are an inherent part of Islam.

Just as Christian reactionaries are an inherent part of Christianity.

But I'm not worried about "Islamic Jihad" in the United States -- I'm much more concerned about Christian fascism here. They are the ones knocking on the doors of power in this country.

You know as well as I do that most massacres are the result of antagonism.

Yeah, but I don't see how that helps.

It's an "antagonistic world", right?

If we are going to discuss massacre, then we have to be specific...who killed who -- and why?

But, you have to admit, Darwin is sort of embarrassing isn't he?

Not to me. He lived in a specific place at a specific time...and while he overcame much of the nonsense of his era, he did not overcome all of it.

Nor did Marx. Nor did Newton. Nor did Einstein.

Nor have I. Nor will you.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Andy Bowden

26th July 2005, 19:27

On the topic of Islamic terrorism, we must first of all understand what Al Qaeda is.

Saying "Al Qaeda" bombed London is both true and false - Al Qaeda is not an internationally organised and cohesive terrorist orgsanisation with Bin Laden as commander in chief.

Al Qaeda, is an idea - a belief in an universal struggle between infidel and believer, a belief that in order to create an Islamic Caliphate Islamists must strike at the "far enemy" eg UK, USA in order to "inspire" the masses of the Arab world to overthrow their apostate leaders.

Al Qaeda then, is essentially an idea not an internationally organised and cohesive terror organisation like the IRA, ETA etc. It is instead a series of terror cells independent from each other - there is little if any evidence that Bin Laden "ordered" the London attacks - but there is ample evidence that he inspired them.

Read Jason Burkes "Al Qaeda" and watch "The Power of Nightmares" - both are excellent accounts of the true nature of Islamist terrorism.

jasontkennedy

27th July 2005, 04:09

The mind-set of the people who join Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda-inspired groups is obviously as alien to me as it is to you...but it does not look as if "pre-emptive strikes" have any effect on them. Or at least not the kind of effect you're looking for -- to make them "afraid" to attack America or Americans.

From what they say, martyrdom for Allah is something they consider desirable...and their actions seemingly confirm this.

When you really think about it, that's the only way that "suicide bombing" makes any "sense" at all.

Thus the invasion of Afghanistan (or anyplace else) will not do anything to "stop terrorism"...these people "don't think in those terms".

Which makes them, by our standards, "lunatics".

I agree with a good deal of this, except I think you are missing one big point. Pre-emptive strikes are beneficial. Although it may not thwart their ability to conspire violently, it does have quite the effect financially. From what I understand, (and I am going on a limb here) not only have we destroyed the training facilities, and killed/captured some of the lunitics, but I believe that we have siezed considerable assets. I will research this further, but I believe that we have removed access to billions of dollars (or was it 10s of millions) that were controlled by some of the networks. Allow me some time to research this, as I am not stating it as fact at this point, but I know that I read it somewhere, I just have to check it, or you can feel free to.

Taking the financial back may not remove their militant hostility, but it sure can take the wind out of their sails. They may be less effective in attaining the weapons to make their bombs, etc., etc. Also, as you have said, some of these nuts will not be detered by anything, but I think seeing a dozen or so people that recrutedin with you blown up may cause SOME to leave. Whereas, if the attacks went unretaliated, maybe even more would join because it is "no risk".

Now, are they "rational lunatics" or not? Would they be content, as I think, with American withdrawal from the Muslim world? Or would they, as you appear to think, press their attacks...dreaming of conquering "the whole world" for Islam?

I am tired of huge responses, so I think that I am gonna try to truncate the ideas.

Would they be content if we just left? I am not eliminating it as a possiblity, but I think it extremely unlikely. Just look back at any point in the history of Islam, there have always been Jihadists, and they have always terrorized. Those two facts are embedded in Islamic history. Jihad is an axiomatic result of the Koran, as the book actually encourges it as a major theme. So, in a word, no leaving doesn't make it better, doesn't make it go away.

They must begin by winning power in a number of Muslim countries, merging them into a "new caliphate", etc. This means a furious domestic struggle for them...which we have seen in a number of Muslim countries already.

Agreed, in fact that is why (or at least a big part of why) we had Suddam on our bank role in the 70's and 80's. He was trying to fight off the violent militant Shite movement that was swelling in Iran. Also, many Jihadists are under the dillusion that once there is enough of a muslim presents that many of the passives will become radical in light of the prospect of the fulfillment of their promise from mighty Allah.

If that's the case, then bombing New York or London is simply a "symbolic attack" -- they don't want to conquer the U.S. or the U.K., they just want us to clear out of "their turf" so they can struggle directly against "bad Muslims".

That is a nice logical story, but I haven't seen any backing it up. According to Osama Bin Laden he hates the US support of Israel and it's support of the Saudi royal family. It isn't just our military presence that they want gone, but any support of of countries/regimes that they oppose.

As soon as we leave, they will lose interest in us entirely...we will cease to be "their main enemy".

But as long as we stay, we will be their main enemy...they have to get rid of us before they can "reform" the Muslim world and return it to "the pure faith".

No they will not lose interest in us. They have been interested in us for a long time, and they will continue to be interested in us. We are the bastion capital imperialism. WE support governments that oppress people over there in sweat shop conditions. Many Aribic people suffer through life, so that Americans get cheap oil. (and there are many other things to be said along these lines, but again I am tired) The point is, they are tired of our buisness presence as much as military. And if you think that the US is gonna stop capitalising on the middle eastern resources you are crazy.

And even besides all of that, no matter what, even if we completely left (in every sense), we remain a target because we are a success with lots of assets to seize. Remember, their conquest never slumbers. Hell look at what they have done to western India, and Pakistan, these used to be nearly 100% HIndu. What did the hindus do to them? Now they battle constantly, but the Indian Hindus are not naturally battling people (apart from internal battling, witht the cast system)

You don't like that phrase...why not?

The real Christians are Christian fascists just as real Muslims are members or sympathizers of Al Qaeda, the mullahs in Iran, etc.

These are the people who take their religion seriously.

Many and perhaps most Christians are not serious about their religion at all. I've seen plenty of them come to this board and reveal outstanding ignorance of their own "holy book". A real Christian not only "knows his Bible" but believes it fully, defends it vigorously, etc.

Just like a real Muslim does with the Qu'ran.

You think they are "lunatics" -- and by rational standards, they certainly are.

Religion is not rational, by definition.

So when you hear someone who claims to profess this or that faith and then starts babbling about "tolerance for all faiths", etc., then you should know that they're faking it. Probably unconsciously...but still a fake.

A "true believer" in any religion is always ready to convert the heathen...or kill him.

Presuppositions. Sorry, you are wrong on this. There is a distinction between being a hard unversalist, and being a murderer. I will agree that Christians think that they have "the only way to God", and Jesus tells them that, he also says "blessed are the peacemakers", "if a n man smite you on one cheek, allow him to smite you on the other", he also stopped the prostitute from being stoned to death, in fact I cannot think of on time where Jesus gives his adherents specific instruction to murder heathens who reject him as Messiah. Like I said before, I can recall Jesus recommending a slave to endure an unjust beating, as he will be rewarded in Heaven. I can recall him returning to earth as a dispensor of justice as a part of a prophesy, dealing with escatology. But even in that curcumstance (when he "returns") it isn't his followers doing the damage, it is him. So, please show me where Jesus recommends that a follower of his murder people who reject him.

If your government could be depended on to accurately distinguish between genuine "hostiles" and innocent bystanders, then perhaps you'd have a point.

But your government can't do that...it just murders a random selection of people and afterwards says they were "hostiles".

The whole world knows it ain't so.

And that is why I am talking in terms of ideals and entitlement, and not how great George Bush and his croneys are. Come on, give me a little more credit than that.

The people directly responsible for 9/11 are all dead. Who are you fighting against?

It took a lot more people than just the ones on the plane. We never would have known who the other were probably, except one big problem. There was a certain group taking credit for orchestrating the whole thing. I bet they kinda feel stupid about that move now (at least the dead and captured ones).

Kerry promised to send 40,000 more troops to Iraq.

And my quote was in context to Kerry's approach to the war on terror, and not the war in Iraq. I am not a fan of the draft. Kerry talked about these two different topics as that, two different topics. I am talking about them as two different topics as that, two different topics. I wish you would start talking about them as,....... nevermind you get the point.

Just as Christian reactionaries are an inherent part of Christianity.

But I'm not worried about "Islamic Jihad" in the United States -- I'm much more concerned about Christian fascism here. They are the ones knocking on the doors of power in this country.

As are atheist reactionaries.

I am worried about atheist reactionaries in the process of communist revolution. It would be interesting if the revolution ever started in america, and it looked as though it were going to succeed, as I would have a dichotimy of both fear, and joy.

But again, there are huge differences between the teachings of Jesus and those of the Koran.

Not to me. He lived in a specific place at a specific time...and while he overcame much of the nonsense of his era, he did not overcome all of it.

Nor did Marx. Nor did Newton. Nor did Einstein.

Nor have I. Nor will you.

I think you ought to look for a transcript of the original "origin" before ou say this. I will start posting quotes to make my point. The man was more racist than I had previously concieved to be possible. Inf fact I understood racism in a more intense and deeper way than Ihad ever fathomed, after reading selections from this book. (I know it is redundant, I do that a lot to add emphasis.) This isn't you typical white trash moron racism.... This is something different, more sinister.

redstar2000

27th July 2005, 05:33

Originally posted by jasontkennedy+--> (jasontkennedy)Pre-emptive strikes are beneficial. Although it may not thwart their ability to conspire violently, it does have quite the effect financially.[/b]

Nothing they've done suggests "serious money". I recall someone suggesting that 9/11 cost them less than $200,000. Car bombs/suicide bombers must cost far less than that.

If they still bother with bank accounts at all, the amounts available for seizure are likely to be trivial.

Whereas, if the attacks went unretaliated, maybe even more would join because it is "no risk".

No, you missed my point entirely. Their tactics are 100% risk -- they know that they will die...and regard that as desirable.

I know it "sounds crazy"...but all the evidence suggests that to be an inescapable conclusion.

It isn't just our military presence that they want gone, but any support of countries/regimes that they oppose.

Agreed. They want to "purify" the Muslim world of non-Muslim influence entirely.

And if you think that the US is gonna stop capitalizing on the middle eastern resources, you are crazy.

I agree that U.S. imperialism is unlikely (:lol:) to voluntarily retreat from the Middle East.

But imperial powers can and have been defeated...or at least convinced that trying to "hold on" is a losing proposition.

You should be careful of the "unconscious assumption" that the U.S. is "the greatest power in history" and "never loses".

Hell, l look at what they have done to western India, and Pakistan, these used to be nearly 100% Hindu.

No, the area that is now Pakistan was always nearly 100% Muslim...though ruled by Hindu princes. And India itself remains almost entirely Hindu.

There is a distinction between being a hard universalist, and being a murderer.

Yes there is...it's called opportunity.

What a seriously religious person will do to "advance the faith" and "smite the heathen" depends on opportunity.

Can he do it and get away with it? Or even win wide-spread public approval for his acts?

And sometimes even that doesn't stop them. I believe that three doctors who performed abortions have been murdered by Christian fascists...though I don't know the details of the cases. There is (or was) a website that displayed pictures of doctors who perform abortions -- complete with names & addresses. Each picture had the crosshairs of a rifle sight overlayed...so the believer would have no doubt about what was expected of him.

...in fact I cannot think of one time where Jesus gives his adherents specific instruction to murder heathens who reject him as Messiah.

Yes, he was prudent...understandable in the conditions of Roman-occupied Palestine. But he drops hints now and then...

Originally posted by Matthew+--> (Matthew)10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.[/b]

Originally posted by Matthew
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

[email protected]
19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Luke
22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

There are alternative interpretations of these verses, to be sure.

And we have no direct evidence of anything that "Jesus said" -- the "authentic" letters of Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul") are the oldest documents in the NT and were all written more than 20 years after the crucifixion.

The earliest "gospels" were written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem...more than 40 years after the death of "Jesus".

Still, you can hardly deny that Christians have acted and act to this day "as if" these were literal instructions from the mouth of "Jesus" himself.

I am worried about atheist reactionaries in the process of communist revolution.

Well, perhaps I can set your mind at ease -- I don't really expect communist revolution to be "on the agenda" in the U.S. for a very long time...say 2090-2110.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

jasontkennedy

27th July 2005, 23:03

Nothing they've done suggests "serious money". I recall someone suggesting that 9/11 cost them less than $200,000. Car bombs/suicide bombers must cost far less than that.

If they still bother with bank accounts at all, the amounts available for seizure are likely to be trivial.

it has been suggested time and time again that Bin Laden has such a robust rogue army as a result of us funding him in Afghanistan. It takes money to do anything, especially if you are in the desert. Especially if you are going to attemp a strike on a nation thousands of miles away

No, you missed my point entirely. Their tactics are 100% risk -- they know that they will die...and regard that as desirable.

I know it "sounds crazy"...but all the evidence suggests that to be an inescapable conclusion.

Ummm... the tactics are 100% risk to those who are going to die for the cause. But not everyone is a sucide bomber. This is much like a wedding, not every one is a bride or groom. There are several other positions that need attending to. Really, only the bride and groom are fully commited, no matter the turn out. The same is true with terrorist networks, only the low level suicide bombers are fully commited. Really to others involved, it is less that 100% risk. (I don't think that we'll see Osama Bin Laden, or any of his main men, suicide bombing any time soon). So, to theose who are 100% commitied, you are right, there is no desuading them. But to those who are less commited, the will become desceasingly willing to participate as danger increases. Especially if someone is raiding the wedding, and taking people out. In that case, you are less likely to have a fully staffed wedding... Get it? To a good number of terrorists, it is no risk, unless we retaliate. If we do retaliate, then some of theose people who may not be commited "till death do them part", will leave, and the number of active, willing participants, and financial bakers will diminish.

Hell, l look at what they have done to western India, and Pakistan, these used to be nearly 100% Hindu.

No, the area that is now Pakistan was always nearly 100% Muslim...though ruled by Hindu princes. And India itself remains almost entirely Hindu.

HAHA! Islam is from the 1200's. What, were they Islamic then? I know a good enough amount of history of southern asia to know that prior to Islamic Jihad, Pakistan and afghanistan were both Hindu. Most of western India is not still Hindu. Huge portions are now Muslim, and it happened via Jihad (the sword).

Yes there is...it's called opportunity.

What a seriously religious person will do to "advance the faith" and "smite the heathen" depends on opportunity.

Can he do it and get away with it? Or even win wide-spread public approval for his acts?

I know plenty of hard universalists that would strongly disagree, but more officially, I have attended many Churches, listened to plenty of Christian commentators, visted several Synagogs, several major Hindu temples (including some AMAZING ones in Chicago and Atlanta), and gone to several Hare Krsna teachings directed by Holy Swamis, I have yet to hear anything being taught other than, teach people the truth, and live a life that is kind to all, especially "heathens", so that they might ask what it is that makes your life so "opulent", as AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada would put it.

The conversion methods of every faith I have studied are non-violent to this point, and all of my personal experiance can corroborate that (with the exception of Ismlam). It is for that reason that people like Ann Coulter dissappoint me. One vein of consistancy that I have noticed is that people who thirst for power and fame tend to corrupt the ideologies that they espouse for the sake of their personal gain. This is true for both atheists and people of faith.

I can say myself that I would never "smite a heathen" What do you do with all of these exceptions starring you in the face?

And sometimes even that doesn't stop them. I believe that three doctors who performed abortions have been murdered by Christian fascists...though I don't know the details of the cases. There is (or was) a website that displayed pictures of doctors who perform abortions -- complete with names & addresses. Each picture had the crosshairs of a rifle sight overlayed...so the believer would have no doubt about what was expected of him.

spare me the anecdotal evidence. You know very well that a majority of Christians dissapprove of that sort of behaviour, as would the founder of the ideology, Jesus.

Yes, he was prudent...understandable in the conditions of Roman-occupied Palestine. But he drops hints now and then...

QUOTE (Matthew)
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
10:15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.

"shake the dust off of your feet" - he is saying to let people know "the truth" regarding salvation, but if they are unreceptive, to continue on with life and not get caugt up on it. Seems rather antithetical to your picture of murderous dogma.

QUOTE (Matthew)
10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

This is in context to a final judgement that Christians believe in, at a believed "2nd coming", when the messiah is supposed to return. In this act, Christians believe that justice will be paid to for all cruelty, by God. Again, not exactly orders that adherants should carry it out, but it is left to the Divine. Next.

QUOTE (Luke)
19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

This is in referance to the Sanhedran, the ones who would have him put to death, (wrongly some believe) for commiting no crime. This took place and was fulfilled when Israel was overrun by the romans. Again, context would help.

QUOTE (Luke)
22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

This was a specific instruction to his apostles, for the purpose of a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. You'll notice that two verses later, that when 2 swords are presented, he says it is enough.

If anyone is missing the point, it is you. Time and time again, Jesus tells us that peacemaking is good, and forgiving transgressions is good, and to repay meaness with kindness, etc. A great new testament verse that nicely combines many things that Jesus said would be Romans 12:14-21

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn.Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.Do not be conceited.

Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"[d]says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head."Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Really sounds like an ideology of havoc and murder, eh? By the way, lots of "real" Christians believe that passage :rolleyes:

Be careful that you are presenting/representing fairly. I wouldn't want to accuse you of spinning things to suit your needs. I think, if you were being self honest, you'd find that most faiths are peace loving, and that most cases contradicting that are examples of lunitics misrepresenting that idea. Just like communism was strongly misrepresented in the last century. Most people today react to communism according to connotations associated, and not the ideology itself.

And we have no direct evidence of anything that "Jesus said" -- the "authentic" letters of Saulos of Tarsus ("St. Paul") are the oldest documents in the NT and were all written more than 20 years after the crucifixion.

The earliest "gospels" were written after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem...more than 40 years after the death of "Jesus".

Still, you can hardly deny that Christians have acted and act to this day "as if" these were literal instructions from the mouth of "Jesus" himself.

Surely you are aware that most adherents of any faith believe their "Holy writtings" to be knowledge condescended by the divine, and so then, they believe that the same divine that wished it despensed has also preserved with integrity, as the will of whatever deity that they believe in. You are aware of this? (I am not asking if you agree, we have had that discussion).

Well, perhaps I can set your mind at ease -- I don't really expect communist revolution to be "on the agenda" in the U.S. for a very long time...say 2090-2110.

you are predicting a 20 year span? I am curious how you came up with this numbers. Again, I am not cornering you on this one, I am interested.

redstar2000

28th July 2005, 03:32

Originally posted by jasontkennedy
It has been suggested time and time again that Bin Laden has such a robust rogue army as a result of us funding him in Afghanistan.

It may have been suggested "time and time again"...but the suggestion is a poor one...and obsolete as well.

The funds that the U.S. provided to Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan were used to purchase weapons and ammunition for their war against the Russians...and then against each other. I imagine it was all spent long ago.

Bin Laden comes from an extremely wealthy family in "Saudi" Arabia...and how much of his personal fortune remains hidden is speculative. It is quite possible that other wealthy fundamentalists in "Saudi" Arabia are also "funding terrorism"...there's just no way to know.

Banks in that country are quite beyond American scrutiny...even if we had Arabic-speaking accountants to examine their books.

But to those who are less committed, they will become decreasingly willing to participate as danger increases.

Perhaps...but recall that the danger of American retaliation is utterly random -- like terrorism often is. Sure, the Americans can bomb a house in Baghdad or Kabul...and maybe there are some terrorists there -- or who used to be there or who once visited there or who never came within a dozen miles of there.

The risk to those who don't do the actual bombings is probably like the risk of getting hit by lightning. It happens...but it's pretty rare.

The dangerous part is when the Americans level a city -- like Fullajah. Then nearly all the terrorists are killed...and also a huge number of others. Those others have friends and relatives...who will not look kindly on what you have done.

Expect the worst.

What, were they Islamic then?

No, the people there converted to the conqueror's religion.

Just like the people in South America converted to Catholicism.

I know plenty of hard universalists that would strongly disagree...

No doubt. Not every Christian is a Christian fascist (yet).

Capitalism, at its roots, is secular...and that has done much to constrain the ambitions of the seriously religious.

So the question reduces itself to: has Christianity "really changed"?

Frankly, I don't think it has.

Further, I don't think it can. If Christianity "is true", then you have a "divine obligation" to use every weapon at your disposal to "conquer the world" and destroy all forms of heathenish "worship".

If there are weapons that are temporarily unavailable, then you "use what you have" until those weapons become available.

The big mega-church in Colorado Springs can't burn anyone for witchcraft (yet). But if they learn that someone is a practitioner of the Wiccan religion, they send a bunch of church members to that person's house and "pray for the witch" on the sidewalk in front. After this happens a few times, the "witch" sells her house and moves to another town.

http://harpers.org/SoldiersOfChrist.html

The conversion methods of every faith I have studied are non-violent to this point, and all of my personal experience can corroborate that (with the exception of Islam).

The conversion to Christianity of South and Central America? Of Africa? Of the Philippines? Of Polynesia? Of Spain itself???

You have a curious notion of "non-violence".

The bloody story of how Spain became Catholic is particularly instructive -- not just war but ethnic cleansing and torture were also involved.

Most of Spain was once Muslim and among the most civilized portions of the earth at that time...until the Catholics took over.

I can say myself that I would never "smite a heathen".

Not even a "Muslim heathen"? Not even a "terrorist suspect"? :lol:

You know very well that a majority of Christians disapprove of that sort of behaviour, as would the founder of the ideology, Jesus.

But, you see, the Christian fascists would say that "the majority" of "Christians" are not really Christians at all.

And as for what "Jesus" intended, who knows? I'm sure you must be aware that there's no contemporary evidence that "Jesus" even existed outside of the NT itself. It's true that the "gospels" are plausible accounts of that period -- they are much more realistic than much of the OT...which is nearly all legendary and poetic.

Nevertheless, trying to argue from a position of what "Jesus" really meant is a course fraught with difficulties.

Consider the arguments among Marxists about "what Marx really meant" -- and he, after all, was a well-documented living man who wrote an enormous amount of material explaining his own views.

I think, if you were being self honest, you'd find that most faiths are peace loving, and that most cases contradicting that are examples of lunatics misrepresenting that idea.

No, I don't think that most (or even any) faiths are "peace loving"...though most of the faithful might be inclined in that direction.

Most people -- even atheists -- are generally "peace-loving". Even, yes, Muslims.

But that's not really what we're confronting here, is it?

The people who seem like "lunatics" to us are the ones who actually rise to power in vigorous religions -- the ones who seek out and find those "embarrassing quotes" in the "holy books" and embrace them.

"Tolerance of a false religion," they thunder, "is an abomination unto the Lord!"

When things get really bad, the faithful listen...and make things even worse.

You are predicting a 20 year span? I am curious how you came up with this numbers. Again, I am not cornering you on this one, I am interested.

Happy to explain.

Hypothesis: a religious proletariat is unable to make an enduring communist revolution.

Data: religious belief in the U.S. is declining at a rate sufficient to reduce it to less than 1% of the proletariat by 2105 or so.

Conclusion: by the end of this century we will have a working class that is capable of making an enduring communist revolution.

(The positive reason for doing it then is that I expect capitalism to self-destruct by that time if not some decades earlier.)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

jasontkennedy

28th July 2005, 05:12

This is all for right aat the moment. I have to get up at 5:30 Am

Further, I don't think it can. If Christianity "is true", then you have a "divine obligation" to use every weapon at your disposal to "conquer the world" and destroy all forms of heathenish "worship".

Absolute rubbish. I noticed that you very specifically dodged my quotation of Romans 12, which is in STRONG contrast to this statement. :rolleyes:

The big mega-church in Colorado Springs can't burn anyone for witchcraft (yet). But if they learn that someone is a practitioner of the Wiccan religion, they send a bunch of church members to that person's house and "pray for the witch" on the sidewalk in front. After this happens a few times, the "witch" sells her house and moves to another town.

For every single example that you pull up of someone abusing the ideology, I can bring up some cruel fucked up atheist. The point is that it is extremely weak to use isolated examples. "because Christian A thinks he ought to ostricize pagan X into repentence, then true Christianity is represented by Christian A. (Pay no attention to the mountain of Christians that oppose A, it weakens the argument) :lol:

Come on, why don't you start telling me about all of the great communist leaders that have come and gone (Karl Marx was not a leader, so don't bother)? You see, that ideal (communism) is precious, yet I bet you think that there hasn't been one good execution. But because you see the ideology as accurate, no number of examples of communist butchers would cause your belief in that ideology to waiver, right? All of time could pass without one good communist revolution, and you'd still subscribe to it. (Which most communists can't even agree on one "right" communism, right??) So please stop telling me about the nasty Christians throughout history that have slaughtered so many, because I will keep bringing up nasty atheists and communists. Interesting thing is that in neither of our cases does it strengthen our arguements. Rant all you want about a practitioner of an ideal, chances are that they are a poor example of the ideal, and may very well not represent the ideal at all.

redstar2000

28th July 2005, 13:49

Originally posted by jasontkennedy
For every single example that you pull up of someone abusing the ideology, I can bring up some cruel fucked up atheist.

Well, no, you can't actually.

We have all of recorded history from which to gather examples of religious atrocities in general and 1,700-1,800 years of Christian atrocities in particular.

Atheists are not in the same league...having only been around for some 200 years.

It would take us thousands of years just to "catch up" with religion...and that's assuming that religion suddenly stops committing atrocities -- of which there is no sign whatsoever.

In addition to which, your argument is flawed at its base. Christians obviously must maintain that being a Christian makes one "a better person" than not being a Christian. They, in effect, invite us to compare their behavior with that of non-Christians.

But when evidence is presented that Christians behave just as badly as non-Christians, then they fall back on the excuse that those "sinners" were "not real Christians".

You want to "take credit for the saints" but retroactively drop the "sinners" out of the sample.

(All religions do this, not just Christians, by the way.)

Ok, what about Stalin? What about Mao? What about Pol Pot?

Well, what about them? Did they deliberately or inadvertently kill a lot of people that they shouldn't have?

Yes.

Does that make them "not real communists"?

No...they all sincerely thought that what they were doing was necessary to achieve communism. They happened to be mistaken...but they all thought they were doing "the right thing".

Was it "the right thing"? No, there was actually nothing they could have done to "create communism" in their backward countries -- something they would have understood had they understood Marx himself.

Should modern communists emulate them? No.

Should we feel "embarrassed" about them or "ashamed" of them? Likewise, no.

However reprehensible their deeds, their motives were the same as ours are now: to put an end to class society on earth.

Their methods reflected the fact that they did not know any better!

And we do.

How does this compare to religion? The motives of Stalin, et.al., were ultimately rational. The motives of religious atrocities are always irrational...by definition!

From the standpoint of the terrorists, 9/11 was a "soul-saving" mission. Removing all forms of U.S. influence from the Muslim world is "necessary" as a prerequisite of returning all the Islamic peoples to "the pure faith" and thus "saving their souls from Hell".

A medieval Catholic would have grasped this idea instantly.

So do modern Christian fascists.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

jasontkennedy

28th July 2005, 22:57

QUOTE (jasontkennedy)
For every single example that you pull up of someone abusing the ideology, I can bring up some cruel fucked up atheist.

Well, no, you can't actually.

We have all of recorded history from which to gather examples of religious atrocities in general and 1,700-1,800 years of Christian atrocities in particular.

Atheists are not in the same league...having only been around for some 200 years.

It would take us thousands of years just to "catch up" with religion...and that's assuming that religion suddenly stops committing atrocities -- of which there is no sign whatsoever.

So religion has a head start, but none the less, quantifying the differences is something like saying"my dad can beat up yours". Even if atheists are not in the same league, I think that it is ONLY because of that 1500-1600 year head start. My reason for saying that is that atheism has pretty much hit the ground running, what with the 20th century in it's ruins. I can only imagine, based on your line of thinking, that things will continue as they have, and as atheism gains popularity over religion, that the death toll will rise proportionatly, making for a future brutal enough for Hitler to blush at.

In addition to which, your argument is flawed at its base. Christians obviously must maintain that being a Christian makes one "a better person" than not being a Christian. They, in effect, invite us to compare their behavior with that of non-Christians.

But when evidence is presented that Christians behave just as badly as non-Christians, then they fall back on the excuse that those "sinners" were "not real Christians".

You want to "take credit for the saints" but retroactively drop the "sinners" out of the sample.

This is an understandable, but wrong stereotype for someone that is repelled by faith in Christ to espouse.

consider the following:
1 Corinthians 1:28-30 - He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

1 Corinthians 13:3-5 - If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,[a] but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Galatians 6:14 - May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

Ephesians 2:8-10 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

Christians, at least as you would put it, "real Christians" are are not supposed to think themselves better than others. In fact, even after they are "saved", it is through the atonement of the Messiah, which they accept as a free gift, and not of their own works. Any "real Christian" who understands "real Biblical doctrine" (thus making them something more than a Sunday morning bench warmer) does not believe themselves better than anyone else. Any seasoned Christian, that really understands their faith isn't saying "look at how great I am", thay are saying "Thank you God for saving such a wretch".

There is, dispite all of your ranting, one good point that you haven't directly made, but have put together quite a good case for. Sin. Almost every faith recognizes it (except for Buddhists, of course I assume you knew that :lol: ). Why is it that man, atheist or religious, tends to do that which he wishes not to do, and does not do what he wishes? The only thing that you have proved by making repeated cases against religious people is that people are selfish and sinful. The same is true of atheists. My point is not to have you adapt that view, I know better. My point is that it could be argued that becuase of man's depravity, the dissolution of religion would not result in the end of lunitic butchers. In fact, I think an examination of history would back this point.

(All religions do this, not just Christians, by the way.)

interesting you keep talking about all religions, yet I have repeatedly invited you to engage me in a wider range of beliefs, and yet you just keep making cases against Christians. You either a) assume I am Christian, or b) you don't know much about any others. The problem with choice "b" is that you have repeatedly ascribed specific behaviors of many, if not all faiths. You have implied things like dogma to all faiths. You have implied exhortation of saints, and repression of nut cases. etc, etc. Yet, I bet you are running on presuppositions. I bet you don't know shit about most religions, and your arguements show it. You should take some time to study the things you are gonna bash (kinda like I assumed about Hitler), it really lends credibility to your perspective. If you aren't going to waste your time with "superstition", then stop acking like you are knowledgable about it. Also, quit saying "all religions". Any case to this point where you have put "all religions" would have been better represented by "human beings". For example:

All religions are dogmatic and superstitious.
a better soultion would be
Human beings are dogmatic and superstitious.

And also, in more specific cases, just say "Christians / Christianity" as that is clearly the only religion you know anything about (and I don't think you know very much about it) instead of all religions.

I think that it you work from either one of the 2 above options, you will sound less like a grandois 3 year old, ranting about broken cookies.

Ok, what about Stalin? What about Mao? What about Pol Pot?

Well, what about them? Did they deliberately or inadvertently kill a lot of people that they shouldn't have?

Yes.

Does that make them "not real communists"?

No...they all sincerely thought that what they were doing was necessary to achieve communism. They happened to be mistaken...but they all thought they were doing "the right thing".

OKay, and Machiavelli is back. You think Pol Pot was trying to "do the right thing" when he unleashed the "khmer rouge"? Here is an interesting excerpt from wikipedia.com

The Khmer Rouge regime arrested, tortured and eventually executed anyone suspected of connections with the former government or with foreign governments, professionals, intellectuals as well as ordinary Khmer people who breached their rules. Ethnic Vietnamese, Cambodian Christians, Muslims and the Buddhist monkhood were also targets of persecution. Since China was the Khmer Rouge regime's only diplomatic ally, the Chinese community was not molested, but many Chinese left the country because of the suppression of private business.

Examples of the killings and torture by the Khmer Rouge can be seen at S-21 (now Tuol Sleng Museum), operated by "Duch" (Khang Khek Leu), a high school turned prison camp. Some 200,000 people passed through this centre before taken to sites outside Phnom Penh such as Choeung Ek, where most were executed and buried in mass graves.

You think that Stalin's Gulags were him trying to "do the right thing"? You realize that these Siberian labor camps sometimes reached -90 degrees during the winter?You realize that 30% of the people in these camps died every winter? And to think, all it took to get thrown in was a case of "individualistic tendencies". I am sure he was trying to "do the right thing". Yet another example of a guy who misunderstood an ideology, and butchered people for it. This is the same problem as religious lunitics. IT IS A HUMAN PROBLEM. you keep making it apparent that you believe it is inherent within "all reglions", yet you don't seem to know too much about "all religions", you don't even seem to know Christianity very well.

I will not even mess with Mao, it is just too easy.

How does this compare to religion? The motives of Stalin, et.al., were ultimately rational. The motives of religious atrocities are always irrational...by definition!

thanks for your opinion.

And now my pictorial contribution to Stalin's idea of "doing the right thing"
Ah Home sweet home!
My Webpage]Paradise, or a cattle run for people? (http://www.videofact.com/english/gulags_pictures5.htm)

redstar2000

29th July 2005, 01:45

Originally posted by jasontkennedy+--> (jasontkennedy)So religion has a head start, but none the less, quantifying the differences is something like saying"my dad can beat up yours".[/b]

I quite agree, actually. Few things are as boring to me as "body count" arguments...no one really knows the numbers, all the estimates are problematical at best, etc.

Even right now, no one knows (and will ever know) "how many" Iraqis have been murdered by U.S., British, and other occupation troops or by the quisling forces under their command.

I saw a Catholic site once that went to considerable lengths to reduce "Saint" Loyola's personal body count to "less than 8,000" (or "4,000" -- can't remember which)...without ever discussing the real atrocity -- the murder of people for a stupid and irrational reason.

To "save their souls".

Ephesians
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

To be sure...but then what of all the verses that exhort Christians to "do good works" and "avoid sin"?

If simple belief were all that's required (John 3:16), then all the other stuff would be superfluous.

The question of "faith & works" is a heated one among Christian theologists because the NT is on both sides.

Christians, at least as you would put it, "real Christians" are are not supposed to think themselves better than others.

But they do. The smug and sanctimonious atmosphere that surrounds them is insufferable to any decent person, atheist or not.

(This is also true of serious followers of other religions. Who could stand the company of the Dalai Lama for more than 15 minutes?!)

Why is it that man, atheist or religious, tends to do that which he wishes not to do, and does not do what he wishes?

I can't speak for "man" (an imaginary concept) but I can speak for me. I do what I wish to do unless objective reality prohibits it.

I always have. The concept of "sin" is without meaning to me...though of course I regret my mistakes -- acts which were not thoroughly thought through and led to unintended and undesired consequences.

The only thing that you have proved by making repeated cases against religious people is that people are selfish and sinful.

But if religion were "true", then that shouldn't happen.

Whatever the "true faith" was, people born into it or converted to it should evidence by their behavior their "superior relationship" with the divinity.

They ought to act better than followers of "false religions", agnostics, atheists, etc.

If they do not or can not -- and, indeed, act worse -- then what's the point of religion at all???

It's useless...and, in fact, an obstacle to the improvement of human behavior.

Recall your own case against Islam -- it "preaches war" to spread the faith. So does the OT. And even if "Jesus" nowhere specifically exhorts his followers to "conquer for Me"...neither does he specifically repudiate any of that OT stuff.

When there was something in the OT that he disliked, he spoke up freely against it.

Violence against the heathen didn't qualify.

My point is that it could be argued that because of man's depravity, the dissolution of religion would not result in the end of lunatic butchers.

No, maybe it wouldn't...but it would certainly deprive them of a historically useful excuse.

In the meantime, let us put it to the test of experiment and see how we do.

Interesting you keep talking about all religions, yet I have repeatedly invited you to engage me in a wider range of beliefs, and yet you just keep making cases against Christians. You either a) assume I am Christian...

I don't know if you are a Christian...but I think it's clear that, at a minimum, you have been one.

In addition, as products of "western" culture, Christianity is the religion that we and our readers are most likely to be familiar with -- so "examples" that we produce to support our positions will make sense to most of our readers.

The case against Christianity is fundamentally no different than the case against other religions -- there's plenty of irrational superstition accompanied by atrocious behavior to go around.

And always has been.

I bet you don't know shit about most religions, and your arguments show it.

That's not a very Christian thing to say, is it? :lol:

Okay, and Machiavelli is back.

I wasn't aware that he'd left...but on what grounds do you attribute "devious" or "covert" purposes to Stalin, et.al.?

Do you think they were "just plain evil"?

IT IS A HUMAN PROBLEM.

Only insofar as humans are ignorant.

But here's the thing. Atheists who "do evil" can learn from their errors. Godsuckers can't do that -- they are bound by "the Word of God" to "do evil" over and over again.

Sure, any individual believer can grow weary of the screams and the blood -- and here and there you will find tiny sects that basically just ignore their "holy book" entirely except for a few scraps that they've "cherry-picked".

Some of them have entirely abandoned "earthly concerns" and others silently witness to their own piety and the sinfulness of everyone else. But they are trivial.

The "big dogs" are serious. Christianity must prevail. Islam must prevail. Both Hinduism and Judaism have developed their own fundamentalist variants...and they are "not nice".

A fresh edition of militant Buddhism has not yet emerged (to my knowledge) in our time...but I would not be at all surprised to see a cult of "warrior monks" pop up any day now.

The "big picture" is one of superstition of every kind correctly feeling that it is "under attack" -- not only by rival superstitions but, far worse, by the advance of real knowledge among humans.

Religious terrorists of all varieties understand this very well...and are determined to stop it.

But in the long run, they cannot prevail.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Professor Moneybags

29th July 2005, 15:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2005, 06:05 AM

You are desensitized and bitter.

Guilty.

I plead extenuating circumstances though -- a whole lifetime in imperial America. :o
Still living there, though, aren't you ? :rolleyes:

redstar2000

30th July 2005, 02:45

Originally posted by Professor Moneybags
Still living there, though, aren't you?

Yeah. :(

I waited too long and now I'm too old and feeble (and too poor!) to travel anywhere.

My advice to young American lefties is to get out of this shithole while it's still possible to do so.

There is still a fairly wide choice of civilized countries to move to...you're not yet stuck in "the land of the fee and home of the knave".

But it's a huge pain-in-the-ass to permanently move to another country and I can understand people's reluctance to do that. Emigration is largely driven by desperation.

I did read once that about 600 Americans a day leave the United States permanently. I don't know if that number is valid or not...but I'm sure there are people who do leave.

And there are websites with extensive information on other countries for Americans who are sick of this cesspit.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

jasontkennedy

1st August 2005, 05:42

QUOTE (Ephesians)
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—

9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

10 For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

To be sure...but then what of all the verses that exhort Christians to "do good works" and "avoid sin"?

If simple belief were all that's required (John 3:16), then all the other stuff would be superfluous.

The question of "faith & works" is a heated one among Christian theologists because the NT is on both sides.

Well, the issue of "faith & works" is primarily adhered to by the Catholic Church exclusively. Virtually every other denomonation have a different interpretation, one that seems much more congruous with the Bible.

It goes something like this. A relationship with their personal God is not static, but dymanic, and is measurable in 3 parts. (I cannot believe I am discussing specific Christian doctrine) Part 1. Justification - the part where you accept/confess Jesus; this step gets you into heaven. Note that the confession must be sincere, and the the belief must be legitimate. Part 2 - Sanctification - the part where you grow. Note that this part is not absolutely necessary for salvation, but it is instruction ad reproof and knowledge for the believer to live in "peace, love, joy, and a sound mind". It does many things in it's concept, more than just "spiritual fruits". For example, once one learns enough scripture, then they might be effictive in sharing their faith, or maybe effective in fighting off ole habits that they might wish to overcome. Additionally, they sort out their understanding of God. Again, this part is not absolutely necessary for salvation, but it is usefull for growth. Also, the "gospel" is explained out in parts of the NT, but most of it is scriptures referring to this "sanctification" process. So, you will see many scriptures referencing "good works", some even referencing "faith without works is dead". Those are "reproof" scriptures, and not "salvation" scriptures. The distinction is clear, "salvation" scriptures are axiomatic, they always directly state that they are instructions for how to be "saved". Part 3 - Glorification - the part where you are redeemed for your acceptance of Christ, and go to heaven, or "New Jerusalem". The scriptures explaining this are even more scarce, and almost exclusively found in books of an eschatological nature.

Of course Christians are supposed to do "good works" and "avoid sin", but it is not to save their asses, as you might want to believe. They do good works and avoid sin as a matter of spiritual development to not become dead in their faith, but to maintain their rich and full relationship with God. Again, these are all metaphysical concepts that you cannot know anything about. It is not based on your goodness or badness, but your metaphysical paradigm. To you, the concept of a rich and full of even vague and nearly inperceptable relationship with God is foreign. You yourself would admit that you have never had such an experiance, based on your conclusion that there is no God.

In that regard, as a person of faith (and again you just assume that I am a Christian), I do not feel like I am better than you. I am a wretch. I do the things that I don't wish to do, and I cannot do the things that I think right. The difference between you, and what a Christian believes that they have is in destination. They believe that they are going to spend an eternity with God, and that you will not. Of course they favor their outcome, but that should (according to scripture) cause them to praise God for saving them, and NOT to praise themselves for making the decision. Sir, you are assuming an ego that is NOT an inherent part of the ideology. As a matter of fact, I could paint up a few pages with scriptures that would directly go agains such an ego against salvation, but I think the scripture I posted from Romans is sufficient in that regard.

The reason that Catholics reject this view is not that they have a good theological stance to back up their conclusion, but their view of the pope. The catholics have a completely unbiblically founded belief that the pope has an infallible interpretation of scripture. The big problem with that is that as a result, if the pope says anything of a doctrinal or theological nature, it is assumed to be perfect, and therefore not something that the church can renege on. This flaw has the Catholic church upholding all sorts of things that are clearly non-biblical, and against all of the rest of orthodoxy. The whole nonsense of eating fish on Friday, the peratory thing (which I think they got from Dante's Divine Comedy), Mary being sinless, the sacriments, etc, etc.

QUOTE
Christians, at least as you would put it, "real Christians" are are not supposed to think themselves better than others.

But they do. The smug and sanctimonious atmosphere that surrounds them is insufferable to any decent person, atheist or not.

(This is also true of serious followers of other religions. Who could stand the company of the Dalai Lama for more than 15 minutes?!)

Great, use specific examples to attack an ideology.... HELLO! You are a cmmunist!!!!!!!! You are the LAST PERSON ON EARTH that should be yeidling this strategy! There is a whole slew of people that have really messed up people's view of the ideal of communism. The name has been marred os badly that most people attribute the fundimentals of the ideals to the butchers that betrayed it's correct application (whatever their intention)

This argument is weak.

though of course I regret my mistakes -- acts which were not thoroughly thought through and led to unintended and undesired consequences.

Yeah, like when you scream at someone you love. It is not reasonable, it is emotionally driven, and usually attached to a circumstance. In any case, it is against most people's own set of ethics to be abusive to people that they love, yet everyone of us do it. You act in direct contradicition of what you define as "right". You can explain it however you like, whatever you need to sleep at night.

QUOTE
The only thing that you have proved by making repeated cases against religious people is that people are selfish and sinful.

But if religion were "true", then that shouldn't happen.

Whatever the "true faith" was, people born into it or converted to it should evidence by their behavior their "superior relationship" with the divinity.

They ought to act better than followers of "false religions", agnostics, atheists, etc.

If they do not or can not -- and, indeed, act worse -- then what's the point of religion at all???

First of all, religious people aren't perfect. Not even a Zin Bhuddist would claim that. People of faith (mostly) recognize that there is a force that is from without that is of a sinister nature, and a confession of faith does not give one immunity. In fact most accept that it is natural to gravitate toward this external force it is explained by Christians as "sin nature". Salvation only gives one the tools to "resist" sin nature, sometime with success, sometimes not. The more that Christians develop that "santification" part of their "walk" they more that are supposed to be able to resist. Again, you are presupposing things about the ideology that simply are not there. If you don't like this ideology, then don't accept it, but don't attribute your own will to it.

Again the "evidence by their behavior" is a developmental process. I would guess that you have met some Christians that are very "worldly"; racist, sexually vicarious, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. But there are those people of faith that really do learn to supress their "flesh". Whether or not this is meritorious, I am not asking. It is a problem when they try to force you to supress those same things that they call temptations, without at least a majority of political support. If they are in the majority, and manage to get leaders elected, you either leave or start a revolution, because this is a democracy. I personally prefer a libertarian society, where people of faith have to keep their morality private, and not be able to coerce others into their scheme of right and wrong.

Recall your own case against Islam -- it "preaches war" to spread the faith. So does the OT. And even if "Jesus" nowhere specifically exhorts his followers to "conquer for Me"...neither does he specifically repudiate any of that OT stuff.

When there was something in the OT that he disliked, he spoke up freely against it.

Violence against the heathen didn't qualify.

Again, I recommend that you re-read Matthew Chapter 5. You are wrong.

I don't know if you are a Christian...but I think it's clear that, at a minimum, you have been one.

In addition, as products of "western" culture, Christianity is the religion that we and our readers are most likely to be familiar with -- so "examples" that we produce to support our positions will make sense to most of our readers.

The case against Christianity is fundamentally no different than the case against other religions -- there's plenty of irrational superstition accompanied by atrocious behavior to go around.

And always has been.

Mr. Presuppositon guy is back! How do you know I am not the son of a preacher? How do you know that I haven't spent my whole life in arguement with my father on these points? How do you know that I am not obsessed with relgion, generally? You don't know anything about me, including my ontological makeup! You make yourself out to be a fool when you keep presupposing! Besides, my personal convictions are of no consequence. The only thing that you know is that I am capable of Christian apologetics. You have no clue what my skills may be on apologetics for any other faiths, including atheism (which is a faith).

The case against Christianity is completly different then one against Bhuddism, or Hinduism. By the way, if it weren't for Socrates, you wouldn't have the current incarnation on dialectical thinking, which is EXTREMELY STRONG in hindu thought.

QUOTE
I bet you don't know shit about most religions, and your arguments show it.

That's not a very Christian thing to say, is it? laugh.gif

You are the one calling me Christian, aren't you?

I wasn't aware that he'd left...but on what grounds do you attribute "devious" or "covert" purposes to Stalin, et.al.?

Do you think they were "just plain evil"?

I thought I thoroughly covered this at the end of my last post. (go re-read it, and look at the gulag picture again). Yes I think that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were evil. You are trying to use Kantian philosophy, yet you are an atheist, don't make me laugh.

But here's the thing. Atheists who "do evil" can learn from their errors. Godsuckers can't do that -- they are bound by "the Word of God" to "do evil" over and over again.

Interesting, are you not familiar with ANY relgious reformations? They are basically big banners saying "we were wrong about something". For example, when Martin Luther wrote the 97 thesis. He was saying that he disapproved of the buying ad selling of indulgences. The same sort of theings happened with John Edwards, Calvin, The Wesley brothers. In the Jewish faith the move from hasidic to orthodox to reformed. Bhuddism is nearly subjective, and Hinduism depends on what God you worship, and which incarnation it was. Hare Krsnaism has never undergone a reformation, but I can't remember when they killed anyone (bhuddists either).

But in the long run, they cannot prevail.

Right, in your mind it would be much better to be slaughtered by an atheist. ;)

Mujer Libre

1st August 2005, 07:13

Originally posted by jasontkennedy
People of faith (mostly) recognize that there is a force that is from without that is of a sinister nature, and a confession of faith does not give one immunity. In fact most accept that it is natural to gravitate toward this external force it is explained by Christians as "sin nature".
Recognise? That implies that that force is real. :lol: I don't see it. This whole, "forces from outside" business is just people feeling out of control, voluntarily or involuntarily. They may not want to ask the tough questions (trust me, I was agnostic for a while!) or they may not want to claim their own actions.
Im doing a history of psychiatry course at university, and it seems to me that the idea of external forces fighting for control of our bodies is a hangover from a much earlier age, when we had little to no understanding of the natural world, and how the human mind functioned. We need to move along. To quote Dougas Adams, "isn't it enough to know that the garden is beautiful without wanting there to be fairies at the bottom?"

If they are in the majority, and manage to get leaders elected, you either leave or start a revolution, because this is a democracy. I personally prefer a libertarian society, where people of faith have to keep their morality private, and not be able to coerce others into their scheme of right and wrong.
The problem with this is that many religions explicitly encourage evangelism, which makes their co-existence with any other system of belief or non-belief a pain in the arse...

By the way, if it weren't for Socrates, you wouldn't have the current incarnation on dialectical thinking, which is EXTREMELY STRONG in hindu thought.
Having been raised Hindu, I have to say that there is a considerable difference between Hindu "thought" and Hindu living. While the theology is all airy fairy and fairly non-dogmatic, when it comes down to living, Hinduism is just as stifling, if not moreso than any other religion. For example, the marriage ritual apparently (I don't speak Sanskrit) waxes lyrical on the wife's obligations to her husband, while the husband hardly has any to his wife...

Interesting, are you not familiar with ANY relgious reformations? They are basically big banners saying "we were wrong about something". For example, when Martin Luther wrote the 97 thesis. He was saying that he disapproved of the buying ad selling of indulgences. The same sort of theings happened with John Edwards, Calvin, The Wesley brothers. In the Jewish faith the move from hasidic to orthodox to reformed.
That still doesn't change that the basis of their religion is a particular text, which still bears the same outdated values. In addition, the original sect that was split from still exists, such as Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism, so they obviously haven't learned from their errors. And I'd hardly call Calvinism an improvement on anything...

Also, as an aside, Martin Luther was basically crazy... He thought the devil apeared to him frequently at night, and tried to tempt him... Apparently there's a stain on the wall of his room at the castle where he lived that's from him throwing an inkpot at "the devil."

Bhuddism is nearly subjective, and Hinduism depends on what God you worship, and which incarnation it was. Hare Krsnaism has never undergone a reformation, but I can't remember when they killed anyone (bhuddists either).
I recommend that you read Redstar's article on Buddhism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1101245436&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&) which debunks many notions about Buddhism. You should also read about the Thai government's version of Buddism, particularly with regard to women's issues, suh as abortions. Trust me, they have killed enough people.

And ISKCON is a weirdo cult, like most religions in their early phases really.

Vallegrande

1st August 2005, 07:23

Koran 8:12 Remember Thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): "I am with you: give firmness to the believers, I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them
That is close to how God gave Samson the power to kill all the Philistines, as many as he could possibly get his hands onto.

redstar2000

1st August 2005, 14:47

Originally posted by jasontkennedy
Well, the issue of "faith & works" is primarily adhered to by the Catholic Church exclusively. Virtually every other denomination has a different interpretation, one that seems much more congruous with the Bible.

You are entitled to your subjective opinions on such theological nuances...and I take no position on them at all.

Catholicism has many more serious intellectual problems than that of "faith and works".

In that regard, as a person of faith (and again you just assume that I am a Christian), I do not feel like I am better than you. I am a wretch. I do the things that I don't wish to do, and I cannot do the things that I think right. The difference between you, and what a Christian believes that they have is in destination. They believe that they are going to spend an eternity with God, and that you will not.

Most interesting. Why would anyone want to sign up with a religion that emphasized their "wretchedness"?

The latest "great awakening" in the United States (Christian fascism) does just the opposite: their followers display an enormous and even overweening pride in being "chosen by God" to both "rule the world" and "prepare the way for the return of Jesus".

The reason that Catholics reject this view is not that they have a good theological stance to back up their conclusion, but their view of the pope. The Catholics have a completely unbiblically founded belief that the pope has an infallible interpretation of scripture.

Well, that doctrine is historically quite recent -- at least in its official form. I believe it was promulgated by a Vatican Council in the 1870s.

If you accept the legend that the Catholic Church was actually founded by "Jesus" himself ("Thou art Peter", etc.), then this obviously permits a pretty broad latitude for determining policy.

All very ironic in that Eastern Orthodoxy is probably the closest surviving descendant of early Christianity.

The whole nonsense of eating fish on Friday, the purgatory thing (which I think they got from Dante's Divine Comedy), Mary being sinless, the sacraments, etc, etc.

I daresay that many of the "rituals" and "odd beliefs" of Catholicism were borrowed from pagan sources. But the "sinlessness" of Mary is also historically recent and comes from the same council that promulgated papal infallibility.

Also, I'm quite sure that Dante did not "invent purgatory"...though I do not know who did.

Great, use specific examples to attack an ideology.

The arrogant smugness of serious Christians has been an object of repeated complaint for the last two centuries, if not longer.

I am hardly alone in giving voice to this commonplace observation.

Yeah, like when you scream at someone you love.

Ah, but you see, that is a "sin" of which I am not guilty.

"Damned soul" that I am, it nevertheless always seemed utterly reprehensible to me to fight with someone I cared about in the fashion that I would fight an enemy...to deliberately seek out the most cruel and hateful things to say, to yell at her like a barbarian half-wit, etc.

So I did not do those things...ever.

First of all, religious people aren't perfect.

That's not what I said.

I said that if they were really onto something that was true, then they would behave better than other people.

And they do not do so...they behave worse.

People of faith (mostly) recognize that there is a force that is from without that is of a sinister nature, and a confession of faith does not give one immunity.

Ah, yes. http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

People "of faith" will go to considerable lengths to avoid responsibility for their own bad behavior, won't they?

I would guess that you have met some Christians that are very "worldly"; racist, sexually vicarious, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc.

Quite the contrary (except for the racism part...which permeates everything in America).

Christians who smoked, drank, gambled, used drugs, were sexually promiscuous, etc. might make quite tolerable neighbors.

It's the ones who don't do those things that are "Hell on earth"...because they want to stop you from doing them too. And they are not only totally indifferent to the enormous amount of human pain and suffering that result from their efforts, they actually enjoy seeing the "sinners" led off to the dungeons in chains.

Our great "war on drugs" was begun before World War I by people who proposed to "morally uplift America" and is still supported by the same people...after 90 years of complete failure and the wreckage of tens of millions of lives.

It is a problem when they try to force you to suppress those same things that they call temptations, without at least a majority of political support. If they are in the majority, and manage to get leaders elected, you either leave or start a revolution, because this is a democracy.

No, it's not a "democracy". But when it becomes one, there will be little mercy shown to those responsible for all the "laws against sin" and the consequent persecutions.

You have sown the wind...so you know what's coming.

How do you know I am not the son of a preacher?

You have my condolences for your misfortune.

But aren't you old enough by now to "put away childish things"?

...including atheism (which is a faith).

No it isn't...the scientific truth of the matter is that there is no "supernatural realm", much less one that's inhabited.

All rational people who've looked into the matter at all seriously know this.

Calling atheism "a faith" is just a shabby rhetorical gambit that impresses no one but the ignorant.

The case against Christianity is completely different then one against Buddhism, or Hinduism.

The case against all forms of superstition is fundamentally the same: it ain't so.

Only the details vary.

Yes, I think that Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot were evil.

Up to you.

I think they were mistaken.

Interesting, are you not familiar with ANY religious reformations?

Moderately. The one that concerns you the most, the "Protestant Reformation", is fairly well documented.

While it contained a small "left wing", its mainstream theologians were just as bad as the most reactionary popes...though admittedly less corrupt.

Protestants persecuted Jews and burned heretics and witches with the same enthusiasm as Catholics. Torture and massacre were routine. The religious wars between Protestants and Catholics are thought to have killed a third of Germany's population...a result very close to the "black plague" of the previous two centuries.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot put together were not even in the same league as the "soldiers of Christ".

-------------------------------

Let me say here that I appreciated very much the thoughtful and well-informed post from Mujer Libre.

You, jason, would be well advised to pay attention to what human reason can achieve when applied to these matters.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

jasontkennedy

1st August 2005, 22:27

QUOTE (jasontkennedy)
Well, the issue of "faith & works" is primarily adhered to by the Catholic Church exclusively. Virtually every other denomination has a different interpretation, one that seems much more congruous with the Bible.

You are entitled to your subjective opinions on such theological nuances...and I take no position on them at all.

Catholicism has many more serious intellectual problems than that of "faith and works".

I agree that Catholicism has many serious problems, even if the Bible were the littmans test. I don't really care if you take any position of theological nuances, I care that you are basing your arguement on your preconceived notion that the Bible supports works for Salvation, and in addition that it supports self righteous egotism, and it does neither. The result is that your arguement it founded on false pretenses. You don't really think I care if you take a stance, do you? Come on, even if I were a Christian I'd know better than to try and teach Bible doctrine to someone so opposed to it. It would be a waste of time. Again, my concern is that your are arguing that the Bible condones haughtyness, which goes against a ton of scriptures. I really think that when it comes to familiarity with Bible text/doctrine that you are out of your league. I don't say that with relgious haughtyness, but scholarly objective observation. (the distinction is important) I am sure there are number of subject that you are far more advanced than I am, but this (Bible knowledge) is not one of them.

Most interesting. Why would anyone want to sign up with a religion that emphasized their "wretchedness"?

The latest "great awakening" in the United States (Christian fascism) does just the opposite: their followers display an enormous and even overweening pride in being "chosen by God" to both "rule the world" and "prepare the way for the return of Jesus".

Why? Because people can identify with it. Many people think little of their acheivements, or self control. Many people feel extremely burdened by the toils of life, feel trapped by an inescapable lonelyness. Many people spend their lives trying to fill a void that seems insatiable, and wind up failing, despirate, and defeated. Ask someone who has struggled, or is struggling with drug addiction, or cannot maintain fidelity to their spouse, despite theri desire to. Jesus is for those people (like other prophets are in other religions) the short rope that might rescue them from their inability to stop themselves. Jesus asked for those who were weary and burdened, and promised to lighten the load (Matthew 11:28-30). Jesus did not ask for the overly religious and haugty, he considered people of self important egotism as "white washed grave stones" (Luke 18:9-14).

But then again, I don't really believe that you are interested in why someone would embrace Christianity, unless it suited your argument, right? The latest Christian fascist are noting more than examples of people who have mutilated the message of Jesus for their own agenda. The Bible is clear about this sort of abuse of the cause of Jesus, consider Matthew 7:22-23

"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' "

Just because there has been killing in Jesus' name, does not make those people Christians anymore than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger. Going to church doesn't make you "saved" either. It takes a legitimate confession of Jesus as being your Lord, and a belief that he rose from the dead. If Jesus was someone's "Lord", then they probably would not go around commiting genocide, as he prohibits it from his believers. So, if someone did go around murdering in Jesus' name, I would guess that person to be a wolf in sheep's clothes, and if Matthew 7:22-23 is correct, they will be thrown out, because their confession was not real. That, however is up to God, if the Bible were right about judgement, not you or I. Again, time and time again, the NT states that vegence belongs to God, and not man.

If you accept the legend that the Catholic Church was actually founded by "Jesus" himself ("Thou art Peter", etc.), then this obviously permits a pretty broad latitude for determining policy.

So you are saying that Jesus put his seal of approval on any decision that the Catholic church made after Peter? Seriously? Really? and that is based on? Nice try. Wrong none the less.

I daresay that many of the "rituals" and "odd beliefs" of Catholicism were borrowed from pagan sources. But the "sinlessness" of Mary is also historically recent and comes from the same council that promulgated papal infallibility.

To be sure. As the church spread into places like Greece, the new religion was not really admired broadly, and in fact many were martyred. As a reslut, the design of the church itself was co-opted from the romans. Easter was co-opted from Nimrod worshippers, as it was a celebration of spring salstice, and the Godess of fertility, which in babylonian was called "Ishtar". The easter bunny comes from that fertilty ritual, as does the eating of ham, the dying of eggs, etc. There is no question that if the Bible were correct in it's asserting divinity to God, and then to Jesus, that man has added a lot of unecesary garbage via tradition. I am not sure what your point is though?

The arrogant smugness of serious Christians has been an object of repeated complaint for the last two centuries, if not longer.

I am hardly alone in giving voice to this commonplace observation.

The arrogant certainty of serious atheists and their endless inductive arguments for the non-existence of God has been an object of repeated complaint for the last 2 centuries, if not longer. Besides that the intellectual masturbation, and dogma that would make any Christian blush. Believe me, your camp has a LOT of assholes. Again, I appeal to the concept that humans have a tendency to be dogmatic with their beliefs, religious or not, right or wrong.

I'll spare you the body count argument, but be sure I am hardley alone in giving voice to this common place observation.

Ah, but you see, that is a "sin" of which I am not guilty.

"Damned soul" that I am, it nevertheless always seemed utterly reprehensible to me to fight with someone I cared about in the fashion that I would fight an enemy...to deliberately seek out the most cruel and hateful things to say, to yell at her like a barbarian half-wit, etc.

So I did not do those things...ever.

Ah...... qualifying the shit out of it, eh? Trying to create that same loophole that works for Kant's categorical imperitive, and hope that I don't notice? Nice try. You have mistreated people that you love. You may not have dug in with both claws as you would fight an enemy, but you have hurt people that you love. Maliciously too. And you have regretted it.

QUOTE
People of faith (mostly) recognize that there is a force that is from without that is of a sinister nature, and a confession of faith does not give one immunity.

Ah, yes. user posted image

People "of faith" will go to considerable lengths to avoid responsibility for their own bad behavior, won't they?

It makes sense to make excuses to others about the bad that one does. It is quit the conundrum however, when one cannot give an account to ONE's SELF! Sure people lie like a dog when offering explainantions for wrong doing to others. But my arguement isn't about poeple failing to uphold socially accepted values. That is called cultural relativism. I am talking about moral subjectivism. What a person defines as "right" to themselves. People, such as you and me, fail on the subjective level. We wish to not mistreat others that we love, but from time to time we cross our own moral standards. If we contradict our own belief system, then there is possablity that is is an outside acting force. Even psychologists offer this sort of recommendation, although it is no more plausable than any religion's explaination of sin I have come across. Consider Jung's archetypes.

It's the ones who don't do those things that are "Hell on earth"...because they want to stop you from doing them too. And they are not only totally indifferent to the enormous amount of human pain and suffering that result from their efforts, they actually enjoy seeing the "sinners" led off to the dungeons in chains.

Then they missed the point of the Christian Bible. The Bible does not advocate theocracy at all. Re-read 2 Peter.

No it isn't...the scientific truth of the matter is that there is no "supernatural realm", much less one that's inhabited.

All rational people who've looked into the matter at all seriously know this.

Calling atheism "a faith" is just a shabby rhetorical gambit that impresses no one but the ignorant.

I will say one thing to this, because we have had this discourse before, and I will not re-run it. Calling atheism a "faith" is not a shabby rhetorical gambit. It is a deductive conclusion from the evidence of the atheist's inductive arguement. Not to mention, any arguent you can make is ontological in nature, and does not address any existential points about relationship. You are choosing to believe something that is not provable. That is faith, rewrap it however you like.

The case against all forms of superstition is fundamentally the same: it ain't so.

Only the details vary.

superficial and fundimental differences stand wanting.

Up to you.

I think they were mistaken.

HAHAHAHAHHAH you are so indoctrinated. You are no different than a Christian, you just march to a different drum, but the toon is the same.

Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot put together were not even in the same league as the "soldiers of Christ".

And he returns to the body count argument. Predictable, yet I am still dissappointed. You couldn't even go one post without going back on your word.

Let me say here that I appreciated very much the thoughtful and well-informed post from Mujer Libre.

You, jason, would be well advised to pay attention to what human reason can achieve when applied to these matters.

I'm sure it's nice to have some reinforcements. I will comment that it is not shocking that you would complement an argument based on sides. how superficial.

jasontkennedy

1st August 2005, 23:13

QUOTE (jasontkennedy)
People of faith (mostly) recognize that there is a force that is from without that is of a sinister nature, and a confession of faith does not give one immunity. In fact most accept that it is natural to gravitate toward this external force it is explained by Christians as "sin nature".

Recognise? That implies that that force is real. laugh.gif I don't see it. This whole, "forces from outside" business is just people feeling out of control, voluntarily or involuntarily. They may not want to ask the tough questions (trust me, I was agnostic for a while!) or they may not want to claim their own actions.
Im doing a history of psychiatry course at university, and it seems to me that the idea of external forces fighting for control of our bodies is a hangover from a much earlier age, when we had little to no understanding of the natural world, and how the human mind functioned. We need to move along. To quote Dougas Adams, "isn't it enough to know that the garden is beautiful without wanting there to be fairies at the bottom?"

Yeah, quibbing over symantics is always a good way to take the lead... :lol: Prior to the 20th century, there were no devices to see infrared or ultraviolet light, did they not exist then? Many astrophysist strongly believe that there must be a huge quantity of antimatter in existence that is equal in quantity to the matter that they deal with, yet they don't have proof of it. Just because something is not perceptible with human fashioned instruments doesn't mean they don't exist.

I am really fascinated that you would take the psychology route as the counter arguement though. Really sort of funny, isn't it? Trying to explain away the concept of external forces with things like Jung and frued proposed is laughable. Yeah, I am cheating on my wife, even though I don't want to because of my "shadow archetype" which was handed down to me through my genetic code, HAHAHAHA! The collective subconscious is nothing more than a thinly vailed attempt to replace God. Who do you want to talk? Jung? Frued? Adler? Erikson? Horney? Ellis? Bandura? Eysenck? Allport? Maslow? Who do you think has their shit together? they are called quacks for a reason. Bring it. I understand that to the "psych major" that the only myth that matters is their own. :lol:

The problem with this is that many religions explicitly encourage evangelism, which makes their co-existence with any other system of belief or non-belief a pain in the arse...

Of course they want to see others "get to the next level". If people were opperating according to the Bible, the worst you'd have to tolerate is a spiritual pick up line every now and again. Someone might ask you if you believe in Jesus, and might try to explain it to you. Big deal! Atheists have a tendency to be just as crusading. The "salse pitch" is endured on both sides. We have to start really worrying when people start killing, religious or atheist, for their beliefs. Those people ought to be met with maximum resistance.

Having been raised Hindu, I have to say that there is a considerable difference between Hindu "thought" and Hindu living. While the theology is all airy fairy and fairly non-dogmatic, when it comes down to living, Hinduism is just as stifling, if not moreso than any other religion. For example, the marriage ritual apparently (I don't speak Sanskrit) waxes lyrical on the wife's obligations to her husband, while the husband hardly has any to his wife...

Sure, agreed. Hinduism as a practice is just as fettered as Catholicism by unnecessary tradition and cultural practices. What does that have to do with the ideology though? My primary conflict with Hinduism lays in the cast system. The cast system is, in practice, taken way overboard as well. If you were Hindu, what then did you do with people that retained recollection from previous incarnations? More enlightened people on their way to moksha be not entirely bewildered in the past life!

That still doesn't change that the basis of their religion is a particular text, which still bears the same outdated values. In addition, the original sect that was split from still exists, such as Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism, so they obviously haven't learned from their errors. And I'd hardly call Calvinism an improvement on anything...

Also, as an aside, Martin Luther was basically crazy... He thought the devil apeared to him frequently at night, and tried to tempt him... Apparently there's a stain on the wall of his room at the castle where he lived that's from him throwing an inkpot at "the devil."

Good thing that Christianity isn't based on it's practitioners, eh? John Calvin's hard lined approach to predestination is rather unpleasent, but his contribution to eternal securilty is rather liberating to Christians. Again, Martin Luther might be crazy, but he was right in calling out the Catholic church on it's buying and selling indulgences.

I recommend that you read Redstar's article on Buddhism which debunks many notions about Buddhism.

Fanboy. This one must be why he brown nosed you in his last post.

You should also read about the Thai government's version of Buddism, particularly with regard to women's issues, suh as abortions. Trust me, they have killed enough people.

And ISKCON is a weirdo cult, like most religions in their early phases really.

I will. I will read about it. I am sure I will find some practitioners of an idealogy manipulating it to some corrupted, and likely violent level. Proof yet again that people are manipulative, which helps your side how? I mean if your side were exempt from the same sort of ridicule, maybe you'd have some ground to stand on.

Mujer Libre

2nd August 2005, 01:37

Originally posted by jasontkennedy
Yeah, quibbing over symantics is always a good way to take the lead... laugh.gif Prior to the 20th century, there were no devices to see infrared or ultraviolet light, did they not exist then? Many astrophysist strongly believe that there must be a huge quantity of antimatter in existence that is equal in quantity to the matter that they deal with, yet they don't have proof of it. Just because something is not perceptible with human fashioned instruments doesn't mean they don't exist.
Well you ARE asserting that there IS some external force, so I believe my "quibbing over semantics is perfectly acceptable.
And scientists know that dark matter exists becuse, even though they can't see it, it exerts an effect on normal matter around it. IIRC they observe large discharges of radiation in areas where light and dark matter meet. But WHERE is the evidence that God exists? There isn't even an observable effect of "his" existence.

And I don't believe that you're using the "we don't have the instruments to detet god yet" argument. I mean, that is the reason why we made up god in the first place, because we didn't have the level of development to understand the world around us!

I am really fascinated that you would take the psychology route as the counter arguement though. Really sort of funny, isn't it? Trying to explain away the concept of external forces with things like Jung and frued proposed is laughable. Yeah, I am cheating on my wife, even though I don't want to because of my "shadow archetype" which was handed down to me through my genetic code, HAHAHAHA! The collective subconscious is nothing more than a thinly vailed attempt to replace God. Who do you want to talk? Jung? Frued? Adler? Erikson? Horney? Ellis? Bandura? Eysenck? Allport? Maslow? Who do you think has their shit together? they are called quacks for a reason. Bring it. I understand that to the "psych major" that the only myth that matters is their own.
Wow, you are good at making up stuff and inserting it into my argument aren't you? I said NOTHING about the psychologists of the 19th centry, and I do acknowledge that their theories are fluff, but that has NOTHING to do with what I said at all.

And I'm not a "psych major" firstly because psychology is a degree, not a major and secondly because I said psychiatry, which isn't something you can major in. I'm a gender studies major (at least in that part of my degree) if you must know.

Oh, and WHERE did I mention a collective unconscious? I was merely noting that religion, and beliefs that encompass an external locus of control, are a hangover from the days where we had very little understanding of our bodies and the world. For example, for thousands of years insanity was believed to be the work of the devil or some other supernatural force because we didn't know how the brain worked. This led to the human psyche being perceived as a battleground of good and evil, which you described. How very Dark Ages of you.

We're human, the way we turn out is ome mix of our genes and our environment. Simple, and beautiful. Read some Ricard Dawkins.

Of course they want to see others "get to the next level". If people were opperating according to the Bible, the worst you'd have to tolerate is a spiritual pick up line every now and again. Someone might ask you if you believe in Jesus, and might try to explain it to you. Big deal! Atheists have a tendency to be just as crusading. The "salse pitch" is endured on both sides.
Why should I even have to tolerate a "spiritual pick up line?"
The thing is, that atheists usually respect a person's privacy and autonomy. We don't walk up to engage in a debate with a random person. Religious people (mainly all those horrible young fundamentalist Christian dickheads that are flourishing in Australia) are ALWAYS trying to get people to "come along to Bible study" or "think about what God has done for them." It's fucking invasive. If someone doesn't want to engage me on the lack of a god/gods, fine, I don't keep harassing them.

And that "operating according to the bible" line is as old as the hills. Any religious person who is doing anything bad/annoying is doing it becuase they aren't practising their faith right. What a cop out. Judging by that, there must only be about 100 "really" religious people in the world.

We have to start really worrying when people start killing, religious or atheist, for their beliefs. Those people ought to be met with maximum resistance.
Well I think the religious folks have a headstart on us in those stakes. <_<

Sure, agreed. Hinduism as a practice is just as fettered as Catholicism by unnecessary tradition and cultural practices. What does that have to do with the ideology though? My primary conflict with Hinduism lays in the cast system. The cast system is, in practice, taken way overboard as well.
The "ideology" is meaningless in practice, like with all religions. It's what happens on the ground that matters. Cultural practices are tied to religion, things like the caste system. And tradition is ALL that religion is! The only reason people keep worshipping is because they grew up with it, and/or never bothered to think about it, or they're too scared to.

If you were Hindu, what then did you do with people that retained recollection from previous incarnations? More enlightened people on their way to moksha be not entirely bewildered in the past life!
I didnt do anything with them, considering that I never met any. In other words, I don't believe that. I have no idea what your last sentence is on about.

Good thing that Christianity isn't based on it's practitioners, eh?
Well that's what Christianity is in the real world. It IS its practitioners. And sorry, they aren't doing a great job representing the "team."

Fanboy. This one must be why he brown nosed you in his last post.
Why, aren't you smart.
Girl, or rather woman, actually.
And I recommended the article because I'd read it in the past, thought it was good and it linked in to what you said. Yet you dismiss it with a one liner.
'm no "fan," but Redstar's articles are a good resource.

I will. I will read about it. I am sure I will find some practitioners of an idealogy manipulating it to some corrupted, and likely violent level. Proof yet again that people are manipulative, which helps your side how? I mean if your side were exempt from the same sort of ridicule, maybe you'd have some ground to stand on.
Again with the "they're not good buddhists" bull. If you ask me, any belief that is so irrational as religion is worthy of ridicule, so that's ALL of you. Atheists win! Woooo!
And atheists generally do NOT use atheism as a justification for killing people or ruining their lives, while religion has constantly been used in such a way.

People are manipulative? Human nature? That's why we need god? :lol: People are people. I think believing that god is on their side is one of the things that makes them do bad things.

Vallegrande

2nd August 2005, 01:52

My primary conflict with Hinduism lays in the cast system. The cast system is, in practice, taken way overboard as well.
Who could have brought the caste system in the first place? From what I learned, it was the Ethiopians who first inhabited the Indus Valley. It was a black civilization that was invaded, and that's when the caste system came in, and the Buddha was depicted as white, or any other heavenly body. It wasn't like that before.

redstar2000

2nd August 2005, 05:19

Originally posted by jasontkennedy
I really think that when it comes to familiarity with Bible text/doctrine that you are out of your league.

No doubt...I am not, after all, a theologian nor especially well-read in such matters.

I usually consult this site when these controversies arise...

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html)

They also have the Qu'ran and The Book of Mormon.

I recommend them highly.

Why? Because people can identify with it. Many people think little of their achievements, or self control. Many people feel extremely burdened by the toils of life, feel trapped by an inescapable loneliness. Many people spend their lives trying to fill a void that seems insatiable, and wind up failing, desperate, and defeated...Jesus is for those people (like other prophets are in other religions) the short rope that might rescue them from their inability to stop themselves.

That sounds, if you'll forgive me, totally wacko...a kind of self-induced psychosis. People can certainly delude themselves into all manner of nonsense...but it does not make it true.

It seems far more reasonable to me to attribute those feelings to the existence of class society itself...which necessarily alienates us from other humans as a matter of self-preservation.

Who can we really trust under capitalism?

No one.

So let's make up an imaginary entity that we really can trust???

:lol:

Just because there has been killing in Jesus' name, does not make those people Christians...

Well, they claim to be...and who are you to say otherwise? From some of your other remarks, it's not even clear to me whether you are a Christian or not...and if you're not, where is your authority to pronounce on their orthodoxy?

As an atheist, it seems to me that Christian fundamentalists are the people who take Christianity with deadly seriousness...they will "save" your "soul" from "Hell" even if they have to kill you to do it.

And I would suspect that every one of them can quote "chapter and verse" from the "Bible" even better than you.

After all, they are professionals. :lol:

So you are saying that Jesus put his seal of approval on any decision that the Catholic church made after Peter?

No, I am not saying it. Catholics say it.

But, amidst the night and fog of superstition, why isn't that "just as likely" to be "true" as any other religious claim?

Again, I appeal to the concept that humans have a tendency to be dogmatic with their beliefs, religious or not, right or wrong.

This concept came up once before in an exchange I had with an agnostic. The problem is not "dogmatism" in the abstract; it's dogmatism in the service of error.

Is the assertion that 2 + 2 = 4 dogmatic? Sure it is...but it's also true. That is "harmless dogmatism".

Scientists can be extremely dogmatic...but provided that their evidence and interpretation withstand the harshest critical examination, their dogmatism was positive in its effects. It hastened the victory of truth over error.

So what's wrong with religious dogmatism? It is dogmatism in service to error...and usually quite brutal dogmatism in service to completely outrageous error as well.

Do you believe in "witches"...and if you do, is it "ok" to burn them?

You have mistreated people that you love...Maliciously too. And you have regretted it.

No, never "maliciously".

Unintentionally...yes. Regretted it afterwards, yes.

But I could stand before "the throne of God" (if such nonsense existed) and honestly say that I have never sought to do deliberate harm to anyone I cared about.

I am talking about moral subjectivism. What a person defines as "right" to themselves. People, such as you and me, fail on the subjective level.

Here you must speak for yourself. I attribute my own shortcomings to ignorance.

The more I have cultivated the powers of reason, the fewer such errors I have made.

I don't see why anyone couldn't do that...if they wanted to.

Consider Jung's archetypes.

No...he was just as superstitious as any preacher.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

jasontkennedy

3rd August 2005, 01:12

I am also very familiry with the skeptics annotated bible, I came across it several years ago.

QUOTE
Why? Because people can identify with it. Many people think little of their achievements, or self control. Many people feel extremely burdened by the toils of life, feel trapped by an inescapable loneliness. Many people spend their lives trying to fill a void that seems insatiable, and wind up failing, desperate, and defeated...Jesus is for those people (like other prophets are in other religions) the short rope that might rescue them from their inability to stop themselves.

That sounds, if you'll forgive me, totally wacko...a kind of self-induced psychosis. People can certainly delude themselves into all manner of nonsense...but it does not make it true.

It seems far more reasonable to me to attribute those feelings to the existence of class society itself...which necessarily alienates us from other humans as a matter of self-preservation.

Who can we really trust under capitalism?

No one.

So let's make up an imaginary entity that we really can trust???

laugh.gif

I am sorry that to you, the human experiance sounds "totally wacko", but those wacko experiances that I described can be found nearly endlessly in the chronicles of history. I think that Henry David Thoureau was particularly gifted at expressing these wacko experiances. You will find that such expressions are not isolated, but are as common as the ink on the page which they are communicated with. If there is anything universal, it is dissatisfaction, struggle, and a longing to do better. Utopia has not arrived yet, and unless it does, (and quite possably even after) these experiances will remain. They seem to be embedded into humanity. IF you are exempted, consider yourself fortunate.

"It seems far more reasonable to me to attribute those feelings to the existence of class society itself...which necessarily alienates us from other humans as a matter of self-preservation."

that is a theory, thanks for sharing, care to back it up?

"So let's make up an imaginary entity that we really can trust???"

Again, YOU are the one convenced that it is a human manufactured idea as opposed to a legitimate being(s).

These areguements are becoming circular. It is clear that you are a materialist, and that I am a dualist. We are engaged in classical dualist vs. materialist discourse, and getting nowhere. You go on believing that there is nothing beyond material existence (who knows where your consciousness came from), and that is fine with me. Just understand that when the revolution comes, that you will have to pry dualism from MANY peoples dead hands, as it will be the only way to acheive it. You absolutely refuse to approach existential arguements (again because you are a materialist), so my telling you that God is personal and non corporeal, something that must be "experianced" illudes you. You are ignorant to that experiance, and you are fine with it, so am I. You will remain unconvenced that there is anything spiritual beyond this world because you demand material proof from a spiritual, non material plain. Keep waiting, maybe when your consciousness ceases to exist in the material, you'll understand, but until then it is a lost cause.

Well, they claim to be...and who are you to say otherwise? From some of your other remarks, it's not even clear to me whether you are a Christian or not...and if you're not, where is your authority to pronounce on their orthodoxy?

As an atheist, it seems to me that Christian fundamentalists are the people who take Christianity with deadly seriousness...they will "save" your "soul" from "Hell" even if they have to kill you to do it.

And I would suspect that every one of them can quote "chapter and verse" from the "Bible" even better than you.

After all, they are professionals. laugh.gif

I can claim to be a teapot. Am I? NO! There is a protocol to being a teapot, I do not meet it. Some things have a fairly vague, non explicite protocol, such as resistance, or chair. Other things have a very specific protocol, such as communism, jainism, Christianity, etc. In the case of Christianity, the thing that determines wheter or not someone is a Christian is the Bible's description of Christian ideology, and whether that person adheres to it. It isn't determined by familiarity (there are even scriptures that mention "Satan's" knowledge of scripture), it isn't determined by church attendence, it is determined by their "heart", and whether it reflects someone who has "Jesus as Lord", and so then trying to live in harmony with Jesus' instructions. This includes a non holier than thou disposition, Jesus clearly hated that, as he clearly hated people who were violent reactionaries. ( I already provided scriptures for these). So the titles and professional accolades don't impress me, nor will they impress God, if the Bible were correct. Orthodoxy is derived throug a character that is conducive to the "great commands", and other things that Jesus said. Period.

Where is my authority derived to make such a claim? Because the Bible says it is the authority on Christian conduct, this is an axiomatic conclusion. I am using logicial deduction.

[/QUOTE]QUOTE
So you are saying that Jesus put his seal of approval on any decision that the Catholic church made after Peter?

No, I am not saying it. Catholics say it.

But, amidst the night and fog of superstition, why isn't that "just as likely" to be "true" as any other religious claim?

Because the Catholic church is directly responsible for gross barbary that is in stark contrast to the Bible's description of a church. There may be some Catholics that really get past the man added institutions, and so they are not totally isolated from practicing the tenents of the ideology of orthodoxy, but their structure, and Catholicism as a denomonation is in strict conflict with biblcal precepts. Historically, the church was really, REALLY in violation of what Jesus asked for.

2+2=4 That is "harmless dogmatism".

But forcing materialist atheism on people is not harmless dogmatism. It is in the words of Mujer Libre, "fucking invasive".

And again, there are a huge number of scientists in just about every nook and cranny of science that are at the very least dualists, many theists, and many still religious. If you are relying on science to prove that there is no God, you are out of luck. If you are dependent on "only idiots buy into that superstition", you are out of luck. There are plenty of critically thinking, logical people that might have experianced something that you have not. As Socrates said regarding materialsm, it is the idea of things that can be measured. Not everything can be measured. We can find results of black holes, and postulate antimatter, those are still things that are material, those things can be measured. I am not waiting on science t ocome up with the evidence that proves God, I believe that you cannot measure non material things. There are a lot of things that science can never definatively answer, it is by it's nature an exploration of the material, not a disprover of the non material.

Here you must speak for yourself. I attribute my own shortcomings to ignorance.

The more I have cultivated the powers of reason, the fewer such errors I have made.

I don't see why anyone couldn't do that...if they wanted to.

Of course I agree. Wisdom is a big part of self improvement, so is attitude.

Onto Mujer,

Well you ARE asserting that there IS some external force, so I believe my "quibbing over semantics is perfectly acceptable.
And scientists know that dark matter exists becuse, even though they can't see it, it exerts an effect on normal matter around it. IIRC they observe large discharges of radiation in areas where light and dark matter meet. But WHERE is the evidence that God exists? There isn't even an observable effect of "his" existence.

And I don't believe that you're using the "we don't have the instruments to detet god yet" argument. I mean, that is the reason why we made up god in the first place, because we didn't have the level of development to understand the world around us!

I thought that it was clear that I was expressing a relative belief, and not an absolute fact. in terms ofthe ABSOLUTE there very little to be expressed.

Secondly, they postulate that it might be what is exerting effects, but it has yet to be measured. Indeed, if there were a portion in close enough proximity to be measured, we'd be in BIG trouble: E=Mc2

Where is the evidence for God? Well, again, antimatter, is something material. It can be measured, as can it's effects. God(s) on the other hand, I believe to be non corporeal, or not material, so God(s) must be experianced (that is if one claims God to be personal). I would say that the evidence for God is that this material realm exists. It makes senses (possability not absolutley) that if there is a material universe with a strongly speculated origin, then there might be something that transcends that universe, that made the contents of it (either intentionally or unintentionally).

Wow, you are good at making up stuff and inserting it into my argument aren't you? I said NOTHING about the psychologists of the 19th centry, and I do acknowledge that their theories are fluff, but that has NOTHING to do with what I said at all.

No, I was taking artistic liscense. I know you didn't reference Jung. My point was that psychology seems to try and take the non material parts of human existence and make a scientific material platform to work from. The output of this effort is no less fantastic than any religion, and no more provable. Understanding human behavior as a science has given us nothing but mutable rubish. It is definately not reliable like any other science or math. Modern theorists have gotten away from general theories and gotten more focused, and is, so far as I have seen, still a joke. None the less, we have take the outputs of the "science" of psychology, and applied medicines to these pie in the sky theories. This is where it stops being something to giggle about, and start screaming at the top of your lungs as the proverbial truck backs over the little kid on the tricycle. My mother for example, when I was born was being "treated" for clinical despression and given a slew of medicines for it, later she was rediagnosed with "manic depression". Manic? What the fuck kind of "clinical term" is that? So then they put her on a whole new slew of drugs. Most lately, she was diagnosed with "BPD" and is yet again on a whole new slew of drugs. Sorry, there is something personal in my estimation of this "field".

And I will read some Richard Dawkins.

Why should I even have to tolerate a "spiritual pick up line?"
The thing is, that atheists usually respect a person's privacy and autonomy. We don't walk up to engage in a debate with a random person. Religious people (mainly all those horrible young fundamentalist Christian dickheads that are flourishing in Australia) are ALWAYS trying to get people to "come along to Bible study" or "think about what God has done for them." It's fucking invasive. If someone doesn't want to engage me on the lack of a god/gods, fine, I don't keep harassing them.

And that "operating according to the bible" line is as old as the hills. Any religious person who is doing anything bad/annoying is doing it becuase they aren't practising their faith right. What a cop out. Judging by that, there must only be about 100 "really" religious people in the world.

Well, that is part of life. We have to tolerate differences of opinions, and we have to tolerate the fact that some people are vocal. A solicitation doesn't hurt anyone, if you'd like, just keep walking. Consider the alternative. Homogeny is great at solving conflits, but creating is not possable, so far as I can see, and it would be fucking boring! (Despite the fact that I cannot agree with redstar on virtually anything, I rather enjoy our discourses) At some point, you can make a decision to be bitter and angry at everything that isn't just how you want it, or to accept your ideal world doesn't exist, and try to enjoy this one(despite it's assholes).

And that "operating according to the bible" line is as old as the hills. Any religious person who is doing anything bad/annoying is doing it becuase they aren't practising their faith right. What a cop out. Judging by that, there must only be about 100 "really" religious people in the world.

And it is the PRIMARY defense used on THIS SITE for communist leaders of the past. Sometimes something becomes convention by it's virtue, and not by cliche.

Well I think the religious folks have a headstart on us in those stakes. dry.gif

And a body count arguement is furthering your point how?

I have no idea what your last sentence is on about.

I assumed that if you were rasied Hindu, that you would be familiar with the concept of moksha, and not becoming bewildered pasing from one life into the the next.

Why, aren't you smart.
Girl, or rather woman, actually.
And I recommended the article because I'd read it in the past, thought it was good and it linked in to what you said. Yet you dismiss it with a one liner.
'm no "fan," but Redstar's articles are a good resource.
[QUOTE]

Fanboy is a turn of phrase. I wouldn't have thought that gender specification was important. Firstly, on a forum of this naure, I fail to see the importance of gender distinction any more than race. If you are seriously offended, I offer my apology. I will go ahead and read the article, but in his own words, redstar is no theologian. His understanding of the religion that he cheifly attacks is incomplete and largely inaccurate, so my guess (and I admit it is a guess) is that a religion of secondary (or less) interest would be tragically misunderstood by redstar. Redstar seems to have an agenda when it comes to faith. Demonize it. Instead of really understanding precepts, he will do searches for key terms, and other resources such as the annotated skeptic's bible to manipulate the text to his own needs. In that capacity, I find much of what redstar has to say about hings that he is opposed to as skewed and exaggerated. Things that he supports, I'd guess that he probably is authoritative and well informed.

Well, for me it has come to that point. I feel like I have used scriptures to show that Jesus was opposed to violence towards nonbelievers. He was opposed to haugtiness. He was for salvation through faith alone. So, as an ideology, I feel like I have defended it against redstar's attack claiming that it called for murderous conversion. I think that has been verified by his retreat from making such claims as I layed the counterproofs on the table. We are back to the atheist vs. person of faith arguement, which we have had before. Also, these posts are taking more and more of my time every night, especially since there are two people now with rather lengthy posts every day. So, it is yet again time for me to retire for a little while. You can take that however you like. If you want to jump up and down, and claim victory, be my guest. But, I do not have the time nor desire to keep wasting my time here (yes it has gotten to that point). Redstar, I truely hope that there is something that we can agree on someday. Mujer, if I offended you, again I apologize.

I bid you adieu until the next time!