6.19.2006

Ben and That Damned Tree

(This is a continuation of the exchange in the previous Back Porch post, "Pledge of Allegiance" whar Ben and Rev and Bird made they points on matters not much about flags and pledges but God and...well, ya'll will see. Oh, an' the Pledge of Allegiance yakkity yak now is morphed into patriotism, nationalism and socialism--iifin' ya wanna git in the fray. )


Well, mah goodness, chickens...ya'll been busy over the weekend.


Ben, I'se glad ya didn't "shut up" ...really pleased ter learn yore thoughts. This heah is deep topic...so lemme distill a portion fer ya heah in a new post.

The Garden of Eden is interesting--not goin' ter get into literal or metaphor heah, but suffice ter say, it is a story of rebellion against God who gave Man one command only--not to chomp down on knowdedge of good and evil--and theologians would tell ya' that heah the scripture is speakin' of experiential knowledge of good and evil--this is why the bite (physical participation) is crucial to the process of knowing good and evil.

Mayhap this is sounding too high brow...but think: I doan need to HAVE cancer (experience it in mah body) to know I doan want it!!

What God said to Man was, "Ya'll doan want experiential knowledge of evil, so doan be bitin' the fruit of that one tree over theah." But Man, havin' ever'thang else in the world (man had "dominion" over the earth) was jes' egotistical: God ain't tellin' ME what ter do! and ter prove it, Man was rebellious enough ter chomp that apple ayway...ah!

Now, he done knowed evil personally in his own body--uh huh, and got a taste fer some o'it. And evil shur nuff has a taste fer Man.

The rest--as the say--is history.

Now, Ben, Honey, ain't it true that we have empirical evidence of the quaint term, "Original Sin"?

Put two young'uns in play pen, each wif a full belly and a cookie. I guarantee ya that one toddler is gonna try ter snatch the other's cookie!

Why is that? Neither is hungry, both have equal cookies..so nothing biological is drivin' that little thang ter selfishness and greed--lessen we give some non-biological designation, like original sin.

Fact is Man has passions that doan advance his evolutional progress or biological needs.

Ben, do you see evidence of man's progress since Aristole? Cicero?
Erasmus? Locke? I doan mean techno toys--shur, we'uns have fancy trinkets and toys...no, I mean progress in the heart of man? Man as a species is no bettr'n he was in 1000 BC, 1 B.C., 500 A.D. or 2006 ...we still kill, we steal, we lie and cheat, we slander, we wage war, harbor bigoted and mean-spirited attitudes. We jes' do it wif lasers and tasers now. Do ya think youse any less dead hit on the head wif a jawbone of saber-toofed tiger or hit wif a microwave zapper from a LEO (low earth orbit satelite)? Naw..youse jes' as dead either way.

Aunty Belle doan see much progress in the heart of Man since Hammurabi.

SO, I'se persuaded, chile' that there is somethin' like Original Sin or whatever ya wanna name it--meanin' an intrinsic bent part of the heart that doan do good.

Animals doan have moral dilemmas
...they jes act on instinct, no moral premise a'tall.

We'uns have a sense of moral good and bad--every culture, every era has had it--whar's it come from? It ain't taught...it is evident in every culture that there is a "fair" way and a wrong way ter be toward yore fellow man--even ter the point of personal loss.

Looky, a hungry animal will take a haunch of antelope from his neighbor even if the neighbor lion was the hunter...and think nothin' of it. But man who takes what he did not earn is uneasy, knows he done wrong. The man wif food who watches another starve is uneasy, knows he should share. Man knows good and evil--

So if Man experientially understands evil because he violated (somehow, whether literal or metaphorical doan matter)God's warning...then it is NOT God who caused the heartache and pain of this heah "fallen world."

The seed of the consequence was ALREADY in the wrong act. Jes'like if ya has too much ter drink and wakes wif the space shuttle liftin' off in yore haid, ya doan say it is God's fault. Nope. Ya knows whose fault it is. Lessen youse one of those who think "God is so unfair! He put moonshine on the planet and it feels so good ter have a swig or two or ten, but He made it so it busts yore haid open like a overripe melon the next mornin'. What a mean nasty God he is!"

God didn't throw nobody outa paradise on account of a cosmic tantrum. The guilt we feel is there wifout God doin' a thang--it is part of what we found out wif that bite--the knowedge of good and evil means understanding of wrong doing. We git guilt from our ownselves--we knows we done wrong. It is interstitial, Ben. The body knows, the mind knows, the heart knows..the spirit knows.

Ya cain't escape it by definin' somethang awful as a "religious taboo" that "modern" man doan need ter worry about. Makin' it legal doan work either. The heart of Man KNOWS.

Metaphor or literal, notice in Genesis whar it says that after they bit that dang apple they "knew" they were "naked"....and when God asked Adam why he hid, Adam said "becasue I was naked" and God asked, "Who told you you were naked?"

Ya see? BEFORE the knowedge of good and evil, Man was happy and innocent
in his natural created state: He didn't know he was naked or even capable of being "naked" cause "naked" weren't in his vocabulary. Man was created GOOD(not fallen). Only after the disobedient act of rebellion did Adam understand the concept of naked.

The logical ? is, then WHY did God put that damn tree there in the first place?

Now, that is the big ?, ain't it?

The answer is that God, outa LOVE, was willing to take the risk...cause iffin' there was no way fer man ter choose to follow the order God had given ter the world, then man would only be a puppet--a controlled creature wif nothin' more unique than any other animal actin' on instinct.

But, Ben, God created man in HIS OWN image...as a creator, like The Creator, as an agent capable of making a free will decision...see, if there were no tree (or whatever) that constituted a chance fer man ter choose, then we'd be only automatons. And when ya makes a choice, God cain't be snatchin' back the consequences of the choice yer made cause then the choice is no choice--iffin nothin' ya did made a hill o' beans difference' then ya would have no choice since all the outcomes would be the same no matter what choice ya made! (Imagine puttin' in yore dime ter the drink machine and they's a bunch of choices listed; root beer, mello yellow (ick!) fruit punch, and pepsi..but no matter what button ya punched, ya got a bottle of water...why choose at all?)

God is a father...he did not want a puppet boy, He wanted YOU, in all yore You-ness. And He done took a whale of a risk givin' ya free will and He ....lost.

God coulda shriveld that tree up jes' the moment ya put out ya hand ter touch it...but that would be removin' yer choice, your free agency. He loved ya enough ter let ya make a cosmic shatterin' mistake.

But He didn't leave ya there....He came ter get His kid back--entered into His own created order, (like you enterin' into yore own paintin') though He is beyond that created dimension, He was willing, in love, ter come into it and make Himself a bridge fer ya to git back over to the best side of existence...iffin' you'd come, freely.

He ain't gonna make none of us come back to Him and His order..cause ya's still free...but if ya freely choose Him there is a remedy fer the "problem of Man."

On a less theological plane we can illustrate the point (flippantly ) by thinkin' about eatin' properly. Iffin we'uns try ter live on sugar and nicotine and potato chips wif beer, then we'uns is eventually gonna git real puny, and then sick--even permanent damage in the liver, kidneys.

But we think we can make "light beer" or "fat free" potato chips or "splenda" sweetened cookies and git rid of the consequences of our poor diet choices...but that is nothin' but marketing ploys, Sugar Pie....youse still gonna be sick...and iffin' a dietician tries ter tell ya that yore eatin habits is "wrong" note how some folks is determined ter prove the dietician wrong instead...and they keeps eatin' that junk and pretendin' they is gonna beat the body's system of nutrition needs.

Youse free to eat junk, but iffin' ya choose ter rethink it and that ya's sick of feelin' sick, then ya can git better pretty soon iffin' ya make adjustments to eat in accord wif how ya's made.

Natcher'ly in this illustration, junk food is sin...sin makes ya suffer--not cause God sends that sufferin' but on account of sin (like junk food) has its own consequence built in. And the fake sugar or "lite" beer is a metaphor fer fake spirituality. Man is made wif a spirit, and a body. That spirit will demand ter be fed somethang...and some folks try to appease that urge wif religion "lite" or "imitation" spirituality...all of which doan do any more'n fake sugar does fer yore body.

But changin' our sin habits so that we act more in accord wif the way we's made -heart and soul- will bring about better health of heart and soul.

God ain't punishin' us when we chose evil acts, He is heartbroken like any daddy would be when his chile' does somethin' contrary ter what daddy done warned the chile would bring misery. And daddy hopes his kid would c'mon home an say "golly, that was foolish, Dad, and I'm sorry I did that. Shoulda known better."

Dad says, "Son, c'mon in here and let's celebrate yore returnin' home. I am so happy ter see ya!"

58 comments:

Mr Q said...

Aunty, I am just hoping that I can catch up with your long threads, please do not go WCH on me. I share a lot of your views here and will probably repeat what you said already. If we are screwed in this world, is becuase the choices we make or others make for us.
I don't know many parents that want to play power games with their grown-up kids. Normally, we want what is best for them, help them along the way, if they let us, yes, if they let us, that is where we are. We do our own thing, but fail to recognize what the creator already provided and continues to provide. Sometimes we only care about taking the only cookie our sibling(s) have and slap them too. We all are bullies, not as individuals, but as a whole group. Some older guy told me:
"I believe that humanity is getting better, we will have less suffering in the future"
I laughed my ass off in his face. (He was my boss).
I said to him.
You mean to tell me that Pfizer, Exxon, Shell and GE will actually care for us in the future? And that next time I buy a flying car, I wont actually buy it? So if there is no greed in the future, that means that we have reinvented paradise? I finish by saying. You are not being optimistic, you are full of shit. Boss.

suzisword said...

nicodemas a religios teacher at that time said "what must i do to inheriate the kingdom of God(which is not heaven by the way)"Jesus said you must be born again" truly old nicodemos thought Jesus was wack, he said how can i go back into my mother and be born again? Jesus said flesh gives birth to flesh,but the spirit gives birth to spirit. you see we are tri-part beings, body,with it's desires and needs, soul, which is your emotions and mind, spirit which is THE REAL YOU. who GOD made you to be ,the king that has domion, authority,and ,and, and, all that adam and eve had. but that spirit can only be activated through the spirit of GOD when you say, OK i cant live under the curse of sin, sickness, disease, poverty, emptyness, philosiphy, strife, struggle, etc,etc all that is under the curse brought on by the man spirit being separated by GODS spirit. thats were the nakedness comes from. the KINGDOM OF GOD is for the here and now, to live like we were intended, it's like the MATRIX,2 pilles represent the choise to be born again or live life as you want. then he gets baptised with the Holy spirit(God's Spirit) when he puts his finger in the mirror.Now he is born of the spirit and set free from the bondage of the curse on earth,remember all the bondages that poped off NEO. now he enters the KINGDOM OF GOD were he needs training on how to use that power and how to renew your mind to the mind of CHRIST and not think like the world thinks in their futile thoughts,but how to live above all the natural. in the book of Galatians, PAUL was telling the galatians how to walk in the spirit(ur reborn spirit that is now housing the Spirit of the living GOD)and not walking through the flesh.you see us true believers are overcomers cuz we overcome the natural, through the super-natural. i realy tried hard to explain all this, in everyday language,a human mind can not concieve the mysteries of GOD, only the spirit of man. you see the bible is the only book that has words in it that is living and active, it is GOD breathed and you can not fathom the words of GOD without the GOD. ooohhhh i would so like to share my GOD with you all, to tell you his heart for us, his awsome plan for us. ive said enough for now.

Aunty Belle said...

Mr. Q!! Chile, I'se real real pleased ter see ya here--been wonderin' whar in the dickens you'd got to--did'ja see my worry that you'd been done in at the Red Gator? (ya doan go there do ya????)

An' I might be aggravated wif ya too--meetin' wif Dawg (K-9)in mah own back yard but wifout me!! Somethin' tells me that was SOME meetin'
Hoo-wheee!

As fer this post--ya tole ya boss right. Is he still yore boss?!?

But decifer fer me--what does "go WCH on me" mean?


Suzisword, sweet potato, youse dead on wif that idea that our minds is only human--we cannot hold the infinate whole of thangs in our finite minds.

Mr Q said...

Aunty, yes k9 and I thought about cha, and said that we could gather round on a future run.
WHOOWEE! is right.
WCH is the last link on the right on my blog.
Red Gator? I'm not sure if I'm allowed there, i'm still working on the Cracker House there next to the Pike. The QHouse is the best spot still. Loved your Spanish tour, I have yet to go see some people down there in Granada.

schaumi said...

i'm not religious at all, but for some reason i feel like saying AMEN!

native said...

a wonderful read filled with genteel goodness laced with hope and beauty. i may print it out and keep it with me, and revisit it on the occasions where i feel damned. thanks aunty, you wrote it for ben but i take it as though it were for me.

Reverend X said...

Aunty,
I have yet to figure out exactly what you are gettin on about here. Original sin? Psychosocial development stages? Man's inhumanity to man? I need to do a full read of the argument.... I'lll get on that in a second. Now if you could just take 44 minutes and watch this.
Professor Jones Nails it down for the leyman

And I would like to point out that the infinite whole of all things which we cannot comprehend includes absolute divinity. Suzie's qauntifications and qualifications of that divinity are completely heretical to the concept of divinity. I have seen a great deal about what God wants and what feels lately and in my own ethnocentric ways I feel God wants me to remind you all of some basic aspects of the human-God relationship.
1)If God is everything then God is everyone and everything and everyone are just as they should be. Any attempts to alter the universe in any way are either contradictory to God's will or simply parts of a grander scheme and really not of our own volition. Therefore please quit asking me to do anything for God or to appease God in any way. I am as God planned and therefore I am perfect in relation to god. I accept that your efforts to save me are God's plans for you and a way to keep you busy. Please accept that I am not doing as you request purely out of adherence to God's will.
Starting to get the Divine omnipotence vs free will paradox? That is actually one of the infinitesimal little bits of absolute divinity that can be illustrated. It is not really even a fraction of the concept, since infinite can not be broken down into numerical amounts. With all that beyond us, anyone rteally think they have an inkling of insight into God's will or personality traits?

Oh yeah, God wanted you to remember that God is omniscient so you can stop praying and telling God information which was known to God long before you were even created. Think about how irritating that would get in an alpha to Omega time frame.

Bird said...

AB: off-topic - just read your comment (asking why we were discussing SPORTS when the world is going to hell-in-a-handbasket - yes, I am paraphrasing you,not quoting precisely) over at hellpig's sty http://traitorsofamerica.blogspot.com/2006/06/al-gore propagandist.html#comments - and left you a comment there, which i will repeat here:

hey ab, i'm appalled by the utter lack of patriotism your comment reflects - baseball is not just a sport and it is particularly not just ANY sport. After all, BASEBALL is the most AMERICAN game of all. It's a metaphor for all that is good and pure in America.

And besides, not only is the National Anthem sung before each game begins, quite often, God Bless America is sung at the 7th inning stretch, right before Take Me Out to the Ball Game (another great, American song). So you see, BASEBALL is also religion - players play and spectators spect for GOD AND COUNTRY! How noble can you get?

I am shocked,shocked I tell you, by your anti-Americanism!

Hellpig said...

uhhh ohhhhh say it aint so AB

native said...

then reverend whatever that 44 minutes contains is what God planned, as well as everything that happens including the things you dont like. and maybe conspiracy theories are how God keeps you busy.
i think your points are interesting though i didnt read anything in auntys post about appeasing God what i read, or perhaps chose to hear, was relax and trust. and if a person chooses to see mostly the beauty in spite of the suffering and injustice that surrounds us then that is a blessing.

Reverend X said...

Native,
I'd agree with you except for a couple key issues. I don't believe in God. The 44 minutes contain proof that the administration or at least a faction within the admin planned it and there is nothing theoretical about saying 911 was an inside job. That has been proven. It is only due to the unfortunate handicapping of our sodiety into believing only the inductive argument and only that when it comes from the mouths of a network anchorperson reading it off a teleprompter, that the proof is not more widely known. So therefore I am sharing it with you. The point of my earlier theological discourse was more for the benefit of Suzie than our dear Aunt. She go'an belive what she go'an believe and thar ain't nuttin gonna change that. S'lonng as she gots breath in'ha chest and blood in'ha veins. Thats fo sho!

Aunty Belle said...

Q, darlin, I'd be taggin' along wif ya to Granada...been ter Spain a plenty but never to Granada!

Schaumi and Gone Native...ladies youse precious thangs, thanky fer ya encouragin' messages.

Rev...readin' all the responses heah, I'se a tad confused--are ya sayin that the 44 mintues of proof od conspiracy is OK after all? It bein' God's will fer thangs cause God is everything and in everything??

Oh, bother, as Pooh Bear says so eloquently...does we need ter get all theological on that point??

See Rev, here is how it works-- God is everything means only that He is all--wifout Him, ain't nothin'. BUT they's some terms--immanent, meaning in and around, under and through....
God is everywhar...since HE made all, but God transcendent is above and beyond and not constrained by anythang material.

The key thang is that immanent is a means of thinking--iffin' ya visted mah house you'd say "Aunty is everywhar 'round heah", meaning mah style, mah imprint--but not meaning ME in the flesh.

So the world, the uiniverse, has God "in it" so ter speak, but in the same manner that it reflects His mind, His order of thangs....but that is not HIM, He is transcendent--beyond a physical existence.

As fer confusion on iffin' any attempt to alter the cosmos violates God's will--nope, not so.

God, who communicated info 'bout Himself ter Man via the observable reality of the order of thangs, the beauty of thangs, also inspired scripture that tells us what we are to be/do....and we are to have dominion over the earth--so we can and should "alter" the world in some ways....(cultivation of food, domestication of animals , etc..)

Also, God permits our free will to be used in ways He does not wish---this in no way violates His Godhood, anymore'n ya' missin' curfew violated yore daddy's dadhood. So it ain' true ter say that everythang that happens is God's will--it ain't.

Bird---yeaow---honey, I'se properly chastised and sorrowful--YOUSE RIGHT!! I will amend mah ways forthwith.

Sweet Shoat..is ya groanin' over the sports part or the post? If the sports--I'se reformed as of this heah minute! If youse groanin' over the post--what part??

Ben...is ya out theah? Come talk ter us 'bout this....

One thang ya'll, they's lots of
Christological stories that get at what is the situation--Pinocchio being a real clear one. Gepetto made the puppet Pinocchio who wanted ter me off his strings, to be real...so he breaks away and is gone away fer awhile (our life journey) and ya may recall he gits into all manner of mischief and nearly 'bout death. Only after Pinocchio EXPERIENCES both the joy--but sorrow and grief of his actions does he understand that to be "real" and free of strings is a risk...and he returns--freely-- to Gepetto with new found wisdom....and an eagerness to do good.

Reverend X said...

Auntie,
See that is the point where we differ. You see the patterns inherent in nature and claim a higher being must have created them. I see the inevitable repeating pattern found after the completion of all possibilities. Throw 100 billion stars past eachother some will fall into orbit. there is no perfect creation of any will. Entropy is the only constant and that hardly lends one to thoughts of perfection.
Also, you see the written text which you proscribe to be the will of your God. I see the other 2000 books written allegdedly by the same God which differ enough to have plunged most of humanity into war for thousands of years. El Shaddai is the original name for Yaweh, Jehovah and Allah. It's the same divinity with fairly obvious discrepancioes of Personality. Who can say which one is correct? I would offer that all of them are wrong inherently. The absolute is absolutely beyond description. The one God claims to be jealous, vengeful and angry. Are there any other of humanities worst traits which we would care to justify by attaching them to God also? He's a lusty God... went after MAry even though she was betrothed to Joseph. Nailed without consent. How old was she? And how can we respect any higher power with such a small penis. Remember, it was not sufficient to break her hyman.
Now you may be offended that I just dissed God's member... you should be offended that anyone thought to make gender and the having of a penis such an important aspect of their description of God. Monotheism negates gender. You guys gave it a penis. I mocked it. You should never have pondered Divine dick seriously. Then you would not have been offended.
When you boil it all down. MAn has the knowledge of good and evil.We know right from wrong because we are capable of learning not only how the world works, but also how we affect it with our actions. This is also how we learned that there are inalianable rights which exist wholly separate from any decree. Whether it be state or papal. All men are born equal. All deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happinesssa. That's happiness, not terrorists. The Iraqis deserve this and they are standing up for their rights. If America has done anything for Iraq, it has given them a reason to fight for their inalienable rights. Saddam was bad, but he was not bad enough to mobilize a people towards their most inherent right. Freedom. We have been that bad to them. I guess in a way we did bring freedom to them. Eventually they will have it and they will have earned it themselves... by ripping it from our cold dead grasp. No US decree can give what people have an inherent right to. Niether can one's claim of Divine decree.
In the end, all the Holy Wars have just been fools killing and dying over who has the best IMAGINARY FRIEND!

schaumi said...

Ho there, reverend x!
being the nonreligious/spiritually confused person I am, I'm saying AMEN to that too.

Reverend X said...

I just came across this
Do Not engage crazy people within their own delusions

It sums up the insanity inherent in beliefs.

native said...

you know what reverend? that's really good. its seductive. it appeals to my mind. and i agree, those who would not fight or stand for their own freedom shouldnt have it delivered by the blood of our soldiers.
and yet, if all of us were to free ourselves of our imaginary friend, we would still have their imaginary friend to contend with. when and how is not a discussion i am equipped or compelled to examine.

but on a personal, non geopolitical level, aunty's post speaks to my heart. not for the reasons most would apply, namely fear, choice slot in heaven, etc. but in the way it affects my conciousness by considering my imaginary friends virtues in my approach to living.

this has been a most interesting thread and i am glad i came over.

Bird said...

i am not religious, but i am definately NOT spiritually confused in the least, and i too say AMEN BROTHER to Rev X.

Reverend X said...

Native,
On the contrary, we ahve never had to deal with "their" imaginary friend. Just them. And there will always be another them looming on the horizon. Poised to do what they do that is so wrong and is obsessively directed at us. It was the Godless Commie Menace. Now it is the fanatically Islamofascist Theists. Maybe nextime it will be the moaderate and mild people of Lichtenstien who are at the gates waiting to destroy us with passivity and calm. Who knows. The only thing that is for sure is that as long as groups of people in this country are allowed to amass great personal fortunes from Defense Contractsing War Profiteering, there will always be a new threat and a new them. As long as the public's information feeding tube is on the constant auction block, we will be told about these nightmare hordes just over the horizion who are consumed with evil and wish to eat our babies. I once started an article with the words Ike was an Asshole
I still stand behind those words. He saw the risks and the inevitable corruptiuon inherent in the privitization of National Defence and National Security. He gave a speech warning every one about those risks. He did not do the one thing that would have actually helped this country. He did not NAtionalize the Military/industrial Complex. It isn't merely a question of Capitalism and a free market economy vs Socialism and a Command economy.
It is a question of wether or not we think that anyone should be allowed to make a profit from supplying the equipment, vehicles and weapons which will be used to protect the those profiteers and keep their profits comming in. Thge Carlysle Group makes billions a year as an investment banking firm. Buying weapons systems that America needs and selling it to America at a significantly higher price.
Those profits were tax dollars collected and intended to be spent defending the taxpayers. Isn't the 50% profit treason? That monbey should have been used to buy twice as much of what ever it was we needed for the defense of this nation. Sounds like treason to me. purposefully weakening or lessening the National Security for one's own profit. Yep, that's trason.

Reverend X said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
native said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Aunty Belle said...

Hey Rev...why , youse revved up!! hee hee...ain't this fun???

Ya say:
" You see the patterns inherent in nature and claim a higher being must have created them. I see the inevitable repeating pattern found after the completion of all possibilities. Throw 100 billion stars past eachother some will fall into orbit. "

Baby chile', how ya' gonna start ya point wif a 100 billion stars throwed around?

Whared those 100 billion stars come FROM??? Who done threw 'em past each other? How'd an orbit occur? Why an orbit rather than a scatter shot across the galaxies like a cosmic billard game? Who made a repeating pattern? Why is it repeating rather than random? Youse need some better answers fer this idea of yor'n, puddin'.

As fer the text--the bible--that you find as uninvitin' as the other "2000 texts" ...well, I doan blame ya fer that--nope--iffin', that is, that one was about as verifiable as the other. But the Bible has so many verifiable facts--whether historical or clinical or prophetic, that it is in a category by itself.

But I does get that ya doan wanna even consider that it might be a more weighty text than those other "2000"...cause if it is what it purports ter be--well, then, ya'has a bit of a conundrum--meanin' ya cain't dismiss it as "imaginary".

Now, please note--Aunty ain't tryin' to evangelize nobody a'tall.That's a personal thang, like fallin' in luhve. Ain't nobody can hep ya wif that.

What I'se interested in doin' heah is ter make accessible the viewpoint of serious believers in Christ--an they's jes'so much hokum out theah that folks who think they know what the bible says or the Church teaches, well, politely, they's jello-brains.

See, the problem is that few have actrally looked at what is taught or even really read the bible...instead they read or hear some regurgitated version and take that silly sop as truth.

Now Bird will agree wif me on this, I s'pect, that iffin' ya's gonna make some pronouncement or other on a book or perosn, ya oughta get it from primary sources not warmed over
pot-luck casserole of ideas.

There was a bishop onc't that said there was not even one person in a thousand who hated the Church, but tens of thousands that hated what they THOUGHT the Church was.

So, Aunty's point heah, mah pets is to try to add in some actual teachin's or history....then ya can dismiss, debate, cogitate re-think..but jes' remindin' one and all, ain't attemptin' no conversions round heah. Ain't mah perview.

So wif that itty bitty clarification as ter purpose, lemme say Rev, yore crudities 'bout God and the Virgin Mary is like a 7th grader lookin fer sniggerin' chortels from his buddies in the back row but they's too busy aimin' spitballs at the nerd in the front row---that's a pitiful show, Rev. Ain't it ironic how you'd defend some moor if a blogger round heah was so deliberately foul against moorish sensitivities but ya' resorts ter boorishness iffin' the target is Christianity? Well..is yore mama proud?

I'se thinkin' youse got better in ya...but waht's worse--you ain' even got your comments right.

IN fact, yore comments illustrate mah point--ya speaks of what ya doan know--they weren't no divine rape, sugar pie; the Virgin Mary did give her asssent "let it be done unto me according to thy word.". (Luke 1:38)

Course, it was the Holy Spirit that was the "overshadower" so it wer'nt physical in the sense of intercourse that happened--hence Mary's virginity stays in tact. The problem fer "modern" folks is that they think God is limited ter human means and ways--how silly is that? What's the fun of being God issin' youse stuck wif only human ways of doin' thangs?

Jesus was both human and divine--a human flesh mother, a divine Dad.

This double reality has fancy three dollar term "hypostatic union" meaning, "both/and" (both human & Divine at the same time).

Now--ain't askin' ya ter believe this, jes' explainin the actual teachin' so ya won't be ignorant the next time ya's confined to the human way of thinkin'.

God has ways ter accomplish His purpose that doan mirror Rev's ways. No rape necessary.

So that brings us the the anatomy of
God...God the Father is not human, thus, no human anatomy--it is the pagan cults that dream up the cosmic size penis and fertility rites etc as a means of understanding the fecundity of the earth and themselves. Christianity nixed those pagan ideas --and some folks is still mad as hornets over it as they luhved the idea of a cosmic orgy and still try ter make that they belief and lifestyle of choice. Its's a very human idea, but it doan even approach thangs divine.
(Whole point, after all, of redemtption is ter make it possible fer man ter get back ter his divine destiny, via Jesus as redeemer. Folks who want to hang around in non-divine humanity is free ter do so).

As fer gender and gender as a divine aspect--again yore ignorance done slipped outta yore jeans. God is not embodied and does not have a gender, male or female. Does thought have gender? Does energy have gender? Does light have gender? The idea is pure fatuity.

God does illustrate his love fer Man wif' t he imagery of fatherhood. And He does illustrate the idea of His providence as fatherly...same fer discipline...but this is metaphorical sugar, since it describes the mind, not a body.

Rev, fer some perspective: the gender jabber concernin' God is the feminist movement's tick-- parasite-- on the Christian teachin' about God. These hags (Ruether, Hellwig, Daly, Kolbenschalg and votaries) ain't nothin' but irrate wymyn who missed the bus. Ain't sayin' you been cozy wif this crew, Rev, shur doubt it, but ya's a victim of the pop version of their "scholarly" pap. Christianity is not "made up" and thus it ain't up for tinkerin'--Christians do not have the ability ter change what it is ter suit wymyn wiccans or whatever else wants ter change it.

Christianity is Revelation--revealed to Man by God and not a "changable story."

God is a trinity, three in one, and the Father does not have a body, the son came into his own creation via the Virgin Mary and took flesh--and it was definately male, the Holy Spirit is self-explanatory. Not askin' ya to believe this, jes' showin' why in the Christian structure the idea of Jehovah in a body is inaccurate assumption on yer part.

As to El Shaddai, Jehovah Jirah, Elohim...or Allah..you wanna know how ter tell who's who or who is real? Pretty easy, honey bun. Ask Him. Thas' what God says, "ask". He doan mind a'tall iffin' ya doubts Him--jes' be straight and ask.

But I doubt ya will---ya know why most won''t ask--lawdy be, they's afeared ter ask and find out! I mean..iffin' ya ask wif a sincere heart, ya' gits an answer. Then what????? Is ya gonna listen up? is ya gonna wanna make some changes?

Mebbe it is best not ter know and live on in ignorance so ya doan haf' ter make no changes. Iffin' ya's real attached ter ya' chosen lifestyle them changes ain't attractive and iffin' ya asked and got an answer they's only two ways ter go--make an effort ter live accordin' ter what God teaches, or to be a cosmic rebel--ya gits a choice. Plenty befo' ya has made that choice. Lots of folks is uneasy 'bout that...I does understand how that can be pretty daunting.

Native, mysterious hat-lady, as fer geo-politics, why ya wanna worry 'bout that when ya gots a place so purty as I seen on yore blog!!

But since ya opened that path...
War and human strife and cruelty was covered in the original post( See top: Ben and that Damned Tree).

It ain't "religion" or "imaginary friends" that cause war as Rev tried to wave it off--I doan blame him fer tryin' cause, ya see, gettin' rid of religion is a heap easier than gittin' rid of original sin...that bent part of the heart of man. Why, ya might finally banish religion, but ya cain't fix the heart of man.

See, honey, if we conveniently say
"religion is the source of war and discord" then we git a twofer--that is a two fer one: We git ter blame somethin' other than our own selves fer the mayhem of murderous slaughter, and mebbe if we banish it the world will proceed in peace, and two, we are absolved from the constraints of moral consciousness sicne there won't be no religion ter make us think about morality--why zowie! We could jes' INVENT our own morality. Ya know--a religion whar what we do wif ourselves ain't a sin, but folks who worry about morals is the freaks? We could invent that ya see, if, like Rev hopes, we banish "religion" on the pretext of it being the cause of war.

Fact is communism is war incarnate--and it is anti-imaginary friends..so uh, what is the source of Stalin's 20 million dead since he had no "imaginary friend", though he had a very imaginitive fiend at his shoulder.

What of the murderous Chinese? no "friends" there either? Say...what is happening ter the religion-is- source-of-war theory? Well, Native Beauty, it doan hold up, do it? Source of war is human heart--greed, revenge, psychosis, need ter defend life and land....some accompanied by "friends," some not.
(All rotweilers is dogs, all dogs is not rotwielers)

Oh, an' one more thang--Rev, youse worried about war profits? Quaint. What about profits from drugs, prostitution? How about idiocy in ecology? Ya see, libs is killin' Africans by refusin' ter let em use DDT fer malaria and makin' em use a tenfold more expensive "eco-firendly" product sold by ----a major eco-freak. What a world wide lobby they gots goin.' But eco killin africans fer profits is holy somehow? More africans dying unnecessarily from malalaria than body count in Iraq.

CoOurse, I does see how Rev and some others ain't as worried about real slaughter the world over--Sudan fer instance. Meebe that's because it is Christian Sudanese that's being dismembered, raped, pillaged ...oh, wait, why talk about that? It doan besmirch the USA so why bring that up? After all, if dead folks doan give a reason ter beat up on Uncle Sam , who cares if they is dead? (especially if they is dead Chrisitians!)

Ya knows that the chemicals needed to "recycle" newspapers and bottles is more pollutin' than land fills? But, looky, we gotta keep up the eco-war hype so our friends can get lucrative contracts fer work that is mandated by law --what a hand washin' job! And that scam is as big as "war profits."

Theys more, but youse be happy ter hear ya's spared it cause I'm watching Henry V on DVD ternight.

Been real fun!

Ben said...

Oh Gosh, Belle

You really want me to do this. I comply because I know that this is my call and I want and must follow it in more ways than you know.

My view of existence (leading to why I do not believe in Original Sin):

There is ONE Presence. Let us call it God. To me God is - as the REV writes - everything. It is soul, thought, deed, stone, plant, animal, human, male and female. It is anywhere, anytime. And all in the same moment. It is creation.

Why would such a presence create the universe? To make itself tangible, maybe? Who knows. But I prefer not to believe that I am part of the MATRIX. So here I go and deduct from my words:

From an all-perspective there is no good and bad. There is only existence.

There is no time. My going through these thoughts changes my past as it does change my future.

There is interconnected multiverse. I am – right now – influencing those parts of me who are not present on this planet and not necessarily in a physical presence at all. And they are influencing me.

And now it gets really tricky:

Speaking about time, a multiverse, a yesterday, today, tomorrow is a human concept that I need to define the universe. It is based on duality.

But actually, I have to scratch that, too. Duality does not exist. Remember: ONE presence that is God

ONE.

That means: I am you and you are me. Everything, everyone, everyhere, everywhen, interconnected. NOW. What follows:

If I even THINK ugly of you, I hurt myself. If I send you love, I give love to myself. And if I do nice or ugly things to myself that cinsequently has an influence on you.

I CREATE by BEING. On all levels of existence. So do you. And all by FREE choice.

You see?

There is NO space for Original Sin in such a concept. It sounds like a little tale to frighten people.

But there IS – in this philosophy - one basic law for all:

To live with UNCONDITIONAL love and compassion as best as we can, BEGINNING WITH OURSELVES. Reason: If I do not truly love myself as I am then I do not know how to love at all.

My point: Live along these lines in your life whenever that is possible for you and you do the best you can for all humanity.

And unlike you, Belle, I am convinced that humanity, living in a dual world has - right now – a BRILLANT chance to evolve. If enough of us choose it to be so.

And that is a sliver of my view of existence.

Ben

maccusgermanis said...

RevX

Why does it seem that your assumption, that
"there will always be another them looming on the horizon." not extend to your appraisal of how the "them" sees us? You suggest that recent US actions give cause for war to Iraqi jihadist (that do not fight for what we would recognise as freedom)displaying an apparent blissful ignorance of pre-existing anti-American passions. The koran, and it follows islam, is obsessed with your "them", a "them" which happens to include us.

Aunty Belle
As to the rest of this conversation, It is my firm belief that creationist, evolutionist, singularity initiates (aka the borg)and those believing in original sin, finding themselves swimming in shark infested waters will all suddenly come to the realization that "we all taste the same."

Reverend X said...

Belle,
I agree with you about the general hearsay education of Modern Christianity. Most view the bible the same way they view the agreement text for free software. The skim one paragraph then click the button and go on.
As to the verifiable truth of the Bible Let us start at the beginning. Why does the bible contain no reference to Lilith? Was that a fraudulent part of the Torah? Second, after killing his brother, Cain travels to the land of Nod and takes a wife in the City of Enoch. Since Adam and Eve were the first and their two sons and them were the only people, WTF is Enoch doing there? Ok we are 6 pages in and already the bible has copntradicted itself impressively. Yet somehow you are telling us that this book gets better somehow? It regains credibility somehow?
Religion is not the only cause of War. I never said it was. It is one of the big ones though. To remove religion from the world would not end war, but it is one step in the right direction. A goal that is achievable is not pointless merely because it is not the absolute and only goal which will solve the whole problem. If you don't care to debate the issue without sweeping and illogical generalizations, just say so.
The claim that Christianity is not a patriarch dominated belief is ridiculous. Man was created in God's image and woman from man. the pagan matriarchy and fertility beliefs did not somehow corrupt Christianity or Islam into making women subservient to men. Christianity has evolved to a more equal point, but it as been a long time coming.
I have beeen on the Dargur situation for over a year. My primary goal, however,, has been to fix my country first. As soon as that is achieved, then we may help the world. Key being that help should never involve blowing the recipient to bits. What else was there?

Ben,
I applaud you.

And as to "Them". Action-reaction we can take this back centuries. How's about we quit stationing armies in other countries and quit bombing other peoples. Just make the first move in good faith and see what they do. some times you have to take risks. fortunately, none of them have an airforce or a Navy so we have a little lee way in defensive posturing. Let's just try not killing them and see how it goes for once.

Aunty Belle said...

Gettin' serious round heah, I see.

Some thoughts to respond ter ya'll...all of ya'll.

Ben, I'se honored ya shared wif us. Thanky. I'm on board wif much of ya thoughts. Yore question:"Why would such a presence create the universe? To make itself tangible, maybe?"

Seems ter me He created the universe ter share His creative love and ability. We's agreed that He is IN eve'thang, but can ya think, too, that He is beyond ever'thang? Meaning, He doan need ter make universe in order to be one and all...so creatin' was act of love and sharin'....not matrix style, lover style.


Ben not sure how ya' arrived at this "From an all-perspective there is no good and bad. There is only existence." Please hep me see what/how this is meant.

I like the idea of yore vision of the future-- having brilliant evolutionary possibilities
--theoretically it should,but experientially ...why?

There ain't no precedent fer it that I knows...does ya put hope fer the brilliant evoultion in technology? I guess, sugar pie, Aunty is not able ter see how mankind in his heart 2020 is any better'n man's heart 2020 BC. But I would be delighted ter learn what makes this wrong on mah part. Assume youse read thas the 20th century was the most murderous raging point in all human history? Wif' an estimated 100 million folks killed in one century?

Hey Mac, pleased ter see ya...yeah darlin' we'll all taste the same, yep. We's from same source, and our innards is workin' the same no matter the beleif we adopt. Thas' fer shur.

Rev, whoa! honey bun, a'fore ya gets ter the bible, what about them 100 million stars? Whar'd they come FROM??? The orbit, how'd it organize itself outa chaos? Hep me see yore concept of a non-God (intelligent being) exisitence of all that exists.

As fer the bible and yer points:

First, sugar, ya may have a bit of confusion about Lilith. Ya's claimin' the bible is fradulent cause it doan agree wif the Torah--first puddin, the Bible and the Torah do agree since they's the same thang--see, the Torah is the name fer the first five books of the Bible. (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy)

And youse also confused ter think Lilith is in the Torah--she ain't. Youse mistaken about her not being in the bible--she shur is, honey. She is in the Bible, long past the first five books that is the TORAH She is in the bible as a nightime hag in Isaiah 34:14. (some say a screech owl --euphemism fer a hag)

Did ya mean ter say Lilith is in the Jewish fairy-stories called Midrash?
These are loosely like Aesop's fables--learnin' stories. Lilith is there. She is a demon of sorts, and she was borrowed from the Sumerians who first gave her a name--also as a demon who does harm ter little boys.
She was drawn as a woman wif' talons... remember that the Jews was hauled on off ter Babylonia when they was misbehavin' and while they's there, they picked up some Sumerian anxieties--like Lilith, and put them in their cautionary tales--not same as scripture.

Lilith has shur enjoyed a rebirth of sorts in the service of radical feminism--a seductress, demon-powered female wif power over men--no wonder the them wymyn wanna be like her and make her their goddess...lawdy mercy!

An about Cain findin' folks beyond his land o birth therefore Adam and Eve not being first or only folks...

Is ya tryin' ter play Clarence Darrow wif me? THis heah is the question evolutionists like ter use to trip up "creationists". Carl Sagan too...well, pet, see, this tactic is silly.

Youse jumpin' ter conclusions on the matter of the verification of the bible. Let's us'uns note right heah that NOT ever'thang in the bible can be verified, (may be true, jes' not verifiable) same as not ever'thang in yore family history can be--some can, some is handed down stories based on fact, some is fact that is handed down but the records is lost in Katrina so while it is factual, it ain't verifiable...see how this is?

BUT, fer the purposes of settin' the scripture apart from the "2000 other texts" Aunt Belle is statin' that the bible is more verifiable than all those others--not claimin' that each point in the bible is verifiable, (that does NOT mean it is untrue--jes' not verifiable) am claimin' that more of it is than any other of yore "2000 texts" and thus this text--the bible--has more weight and deserves more than a curt dismissal as ya have done.

Howsomever, on the matter of Cain...why Rev, first thang ter notice is that one doan want ter read too much INTO the bible--
an' there is nothin that says that after Adam and Eve was tossed from paradise and got em' a pair of boys whar one konked the other on the haid and was sent outthat lots o' other kids was born (Josephus writes at least 40 others born) ...but ter back up---there ain't nuthin' that tells us when Cain was married--he may have been married afore he whacked his brother--we doan know. Also nothin' said about time lapse--we'uns doan know how many years is passin' by after Cain is sent out wif a mark on his own haid....coulda well have been others by then...and keep in mind that the original meaning of "city" is a fortified encampment--not necessarily a thrivin' metropolis. So naming a "city' fer Enoch is like namin' afamily compound fer ya chile.

We does know the bible records that Abraham married his half sister--so marrying sisters is not a problem exegetically at this point in Man's story. (Consanguinity issues come from Moses).

Rev said:
"To remove religion from the world would not end war, but it is one step in the right direction....If you don't care to debate the issue without sweeping and illogical generalizations, just say so."

Ah...LOL heah--who is makin' sweepin' illogical generalizations, sweet potato? Ya know, like a 100 billion stars havin' a conference and decidin' what orbit they'd be in after they made theyselves?

Banishin' religion would not end war--war came first. Cain slaughtered Abel afore there was any ten commandments, darlin'. Ya' see? The murderous rage was in Cain's heart long before Moses was given the tablets. Religion came BECAUSE of man's inhumanity ter man.

But Lucifer--the wily lizzard--he is a clever chameleon, he offers alternate religions fer those who ain't happy wif the real thang.

But he doan care--iffin' ya wants feel good religion, Lucifer has one made ter fit ya jes' right-tailor made fer yore fondest desires, But, iffin' ya scorn the idea of God, who made ya and ya's a creature, then Satan will offer ya a non-religion religion. No problemo, suh. Dis God and elevate ya ownself ter godhood
--make yer own realities, reinvent the universe...and ole' Hoof and Sulfur will laugh and be heard throughout the cosmos.


Ever read Tom Sawyer? Folks can be tricked ter give up their freedom...
creation story can be read as an allegory (not sayin' that it is not literal)that packs one whale of a punch. The Creator made ya. loved ya and give ya a owner's manual, Rev. Ya toss it and then you'll be tryin' ter figure out how ter get the thang goin'the right way fer a 100 billion years. (yeah
--that's a sweepin' generalization).

Reverend X said...

Para,
I found a little time in my schedule to respond point for point witcha. I figure you deserve at least that for the hard work and obfuscation you put into your phonetic dialect...

"Baby chile', how ya' gonna start ya point wif a 100 billion stars throwed around?

I started my point at the most appropriate place, the Beginning. Let there be light... The Big Bang. The compression of sub-atomic particles of all matter reached the limit of gravity's ability to restrain the force of the energy created from said compression. Well, in really basic terms anyways. Boom. So there is 'Let there be light'. 'Let there be dark'? Well, bright flashes will do that to ya.

"Whared those 100 billion stars come FROM???

They did not come from anywhere. They are merely energy manifest at a frequenncy perceptible to us as matter.

"Who done threw 'em past each other?"

No one neeeded to throw them past each other. True enough is the logic behind St.Aquinas' only valid logical proof of God. "Every body in motion was put in motion by another body in motion" except that he credits "God" as that first body in motion which is a ridiculous assumption. The first body in motion only had to be energy manifest in motion. An anomoly, but hardly an all powerful father figure.

"How'd an orbit occur? Why an orbit rather than a scatter shot across the galaxies like a cosmic billard game?"

All possibilities of motion have happened. Those motions involving a mass travelling within close enough proximity to another mass or singularity's gravity well, were affected by this force and altered course. The inevitable route can be plotted by balancing the objects force and the singularity's force

"Who made a repeating pattern? Why is it repeating rather than random?"

No one needed to create repeating patterns. They are the effect of multiple forces on an object. It is repeating because we see it happen more than once. Random Patterns do not exist due to there being a need for repetition to be qualified as a pattern. Aunty if you want we can spend the next 4 months teaching you basic physics, but I am kinda busy and most of this can be self taught online.

"Youse need some better answers fer this idea of yor'n, puddin'."

So far are you following me or do you need a remedial review of the chapter. In a nutshell, no one can say for certain what the first motion was in this universe. Speculation has led to unprovable theories as simple as dimensional shift to as creative and fantastic as "God". Aside from that first motion, the rest of time and space has held to a series of rules which we collectively call "Physics". nfortunately, education not being what it should be, physics is as well understood as the judging criteria used in modern day boxing.


"What I'se interested in doin' heah is ter make accessible the viewpoint of serious believers in Christ--an they's jes'so much hokum out theah that folks who think they know what the bible says or the Church teaches, well, politely, they's jello-brains."

I agree. I have read 5 versions of the Bible, from front to back nd had in my possession at one time, first translation from the Greeek New Testament that was printed in 1805. It was uniqie in it's age and in it's producers being literary rather than religious scolars. They were far more concerned with proper translation and linguistics than in supporting their belief systiem. Greek and English do not translate easily or with any real accuracy barring subtext and explanation. Where English has one word for love, Greek has 7 including Agape, unconditional... Eros, lust... etc. This New Testament had, in each instance where there was more meaning than could be affixed to a word for word translation, given all possble choices for words and an explanation of how each one altered the sentiment expressed. i.e. When faced with the adulteress, Jesus spoke to the crowd of stoners and declared that any man free of sin must throw the first stone. The choices were should, may, and must. Being that he was speaking of Hebrew Law and it's adherents responsibilities it makes a great deal fmore sense that he would utilize a command oriented word like "Must", rather than an arbitrary suggestion like "May" or "Should". Of course you will not find this particular choice of translations in any modern bible versions due to its bringing up the logical question of why did Jesus not follow the Law and stone the adulteress, being that he was free of sin? Perhaps he was not free of sin, therefore his actions bring into question his divinity. So, you can see the difference between Religious translations and literary ones. Yet still you believe this book to be uncorrupted?

"Oh, an' one more thang--Rev, youse worried about war profits? Quaint. What about profits from drugs, prostitution? How about idiocy in ecology? Ya see, libs is killin' Africans by refusin' ter let em use DDT fer malaria and makin' em use a tenfold more expensive "eco-firendly" product sold by ----a major eco-freak. What a world wide lobby they gots goin.' But eco killin africans fer profits is holy somehow? More africans dying unnecessarily from malalaria than body count in Iraq."

Being that I can not solve all the problems of the World at once I am starting with the closest ones to me. My Government has become tyrranical. By reintroducing Constitutional Law to my government I can stop a great deal of injustice here and abroad. Additionally that will reintroduce a very effective tool in combatting the many evils you make reference to. While our Government is controlled by parasitic corporate lobbies like Big Pharma and the Military Industrial complex, there is no hope to stop those entities from doing exactly the things you mentioned. Not only has Big Pharma maintained an expensive and ineffective treatment policy for Malaria, but it has also used those same populations for drug testing and as unwitting consumers of useless and/or banned pharmacutical stockpiles. One can not put an end to this practice without first freeing the tools necessary to fight them. As you should have noticed, my work is not a simple liberalization of one country, but an agenda of achievable goals set up to bring about an eventual elimination of problems and suffering. I chose 9-11 as a starting point due to it's overwhelming amount of proof in illustrating the crimes of the Government and it being the Achilles heel of the Present Administration. It is an effective soft target. The most bang for the buck, if you will. That soes not mean I have any intentions of stopping there. This is merely the beginning...


"CoOurse, I does see how Rev and some others ain't as worried about real slaughter the world over--Sudan fer instance. Meebe that's because it is Christian Sudanese that's being dismembered, raped, pillaged ...oh, wait, why talk about that? It doan besmirch the USA so why bring that up? After all, if dead folks doan give a reason ter beat up on Uncle Sam , who cares if they is dead? (especially if they is dead Chrisitians!)"

Lacking insight into the big picture, I can see how you might draw upon my lack of effort in stopping some things as my not being concerned with them. Of course that is a logical fallacy wherein you are trying to prove a negative based solely on a lack of information. I have never seen China, but that does not mean it does not exist. Since you have not seen me decry the many evils of the World outside of what I have written in comments here, you have drawn your own illogical conclusions as to why. That is ridiculous. Hopefully I have shed a bit more light into my intentions and my limitations. When you ask me to save the world, I msut ask you to do your part as well. Work on those points you have mentioned. Piling them upon me will not achieve your desired goals nearly as fast as doing them yourself. Also, pointing out the many problems in other countries merely diminishes the percieved necessity of action for domestic problems in the midns of Americans. it in no way helps anything or moves us one step closer to fixing any of the problems you mentioned. It is in fact detrimental to the greater good. It is the behavior of apologists and propagandists. Not the behavior of someone trying to emulate the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He taught that forgiveness, compassion and charity were worthy enough for goals to warrant the ultimate self sacrifice in order to further those principles. He did not play the blame and redirect game. He was quite direct about most everything.

maccusgermanis said...

RevX
And as to "Them". Action-reaction we can take this back centuries.

Funny, you had first characterized hatreds of the US as inspired by current events. saying,

"Saddam was bad, but he was not bad enough to mobilize a people towards their most inherent right. Freedom. We have been that bad to them."

Freedom, is that what jihadist fight for? No. They fight, as in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Isreal, and Somalia for sharia, which cannot be confused with freedom. What do you suppose will happen to true freedom loving Iraqi's if your jihadist friends can send the US packing? If you have any true love for the Iraqi people - rather than just a pretense to mask personal anti-American tendencies - you should recognise that we are a positive force, and ally to freedom loving Iraqis.

Of course we can take it back centuries. Doing so reveals that islam is the most consistantly agressive combatant.

How's about we quit stationing armies in other countries and quit bombing other peoples.

Who'd we bomb on Sept. 10, 2001? You simultanteously contend that history doesn't matter in these current events and that we somewhere in history initiated the violence. Instead the current violence did escalate in a period when one of our most visable military endevors was in support of muslims.

"Just make the first move in good faith and see what they do."

Have we not? The mouths that curse us often chew our bread.

"some times you have to take risks. fortunately, none of them have an airforce or a Navy so we have a little lee way in defensive posturing.

True enough. And we are taking risks. We have soldiers at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are a more discriminating weapon than bombing, able to lend aid or detroy as the daily evolving realities dictate.

Let's just try not killing them and see how it goes for once.

You seem to suggest that our military kills indescriminately. This is false. We are trying not to kill them. If you have any real compassion for your jihadist friends, or the more moderate of their ideological kin, then stop encouraging them in a direction that is more likely to induce US into a total war.

Reverend X said...

WTF? There were no Jyhadists in Iraq prior to our invasion. Yje Iraqi insugents are not on a Jyhad, they are fighting for their land. Less than 4% of captured and or killed fighters in Iraq have been foriegn Jyhadist fighters. And we do not kill indiscriminately? Tell thaT ONE TO THE 130,000 iRAQIS WE KILLED SO FAR!!! How we treat Iraqis is not history it is a current event. 911 was not carried out by Arabs and we bombed Iraq on the 10th.
Now please tell me why we are there in the first place? Gimme the noble cause that our best and brightest are fucking dying for!! Pleasae. What is the reason? WMD? nope!! They were a threat? nope. Saddam gassed his own people? No shit who sold them the weapons, charts and plotting schematics? We did. And now we are gassing the same friggin people. White phosporus and MX 77. And if that don't beat all... google image DU!!!

Aunty Belle said...

Rev, ya loaded up a bunch of the same stuff wif the same conclusion but not adressin' the beginin'--iffin' ya favors Big Bang--OK, but how did BB occur? Ya say pent up atoms --whar's tha atoms come from? Ya say first movement in the universe...but whar's universe come from to have movement---doan bother yore heaid, honey--thay ain't no answer fer that that fits yore chosen stance--and honey, great scientits have tried and say, SOMETHING is behind it all, a SOMETHING with intelligence--ya can call it what ya want.

Rev wrote: Aside from that first motion, the rest of time and space has held to a series of rules which we collectively call "Physics".

......now I'se tryin' not LOL heah, but really, Rev. Physics ain't nuthin' but man's discovery of the rules of order that IS ALREADY IN PLACE...see? man did scientifically come up with physics, but merely uncovers the way-things-work...this means, an appeal ter physics is an appeal to God or whatever ya names IB (Intelligent Being). But even afore physics...time and space? Same game, Rev, gotta first answer why there is somethin' rather than nuthin' Why /how is there "space" tht is filled wif time and energy that obeys the laws of physics?

As ter ya readin' the bible and havin' a look at some old one--we ain't tossin' around "my bible is bettern' yore bible" jabs, sugar pie, outa my takin' care not to be uppity on the matter--iffin' ya wanna compare personal libraries at some point, youse welcome to put ya travlin' shoes on.

But that ain' the point--as T.Aq and others note, even the devil believes ...he jes' doan abide. So Rev. a literary reader of the bible is not necessariuly contra a religious reader--and the translation, jes' fer clarity, is the Jesus said "let"
the "may"(permission) form of the comment, not because He may have been in sin, but because the bloodbath would be horrendous--all those fellas criclin' that poor prostitute were likely clients of hers...readin' further, see how Jesus is writin' in the sand beneath their circle? Writin' the names of her frequent visitors--all of standing there--that He knew them fer what they were and showed them the same mercy He showed her iffin' they left her alone---He let them go, too, much chastened. Oh an' shur I found that translation--whar's ya gettin' the idea that the permissive form was not available in modern translations?

Jesus didn't follow the law--as ya note--not jes' heah , but in other palces too--how about healin' folks on the sabbath? He was challenged by His detractors fer that --does the fact that he broke that law mean He was sinful ter ya Rev? Ya's pickin' and choosin', ya see...that' doan work--the entireity of the scipture is the only context--not shavin' a verse here or there and tryin' ter maki it fit your point--Jesus was merciful, not sinful. Ya should take great heart from that!

And fer clarity, let's clear up AGAPE--not "unconditional", but self sacrificial;putting the good of the other first. Uncondiitional love does not mean to permit the other to keep on doing wrong, but to risk calling the one in error back to truth. (Cf. Deus Caritas Est)

Now, honey--leave off tryin' ter pull some mis-readin' or twisted like a pretzel version into the scripture- instead, look inward...why is it so important ter ya?

Rev, real concerned heah fer ya...ya say

"As you should have noticed, my work is not a simple liberalization of one country, but an agenda of achievable goals set up to bring about an eventual elimination of problems and suffering."

Rev, what can ya mean heah? Does ya mean this fer the US or universally? How's that gonna come about, honey?

Ya think if "big business" is eliminated or capitalism that the world will be free of evil? I'm sorry ter sound hurtful, and doan mean to, but ain't this a wee bit ambitios idea ya got? Communism and socialism ain;t solved the miseries of thwe world, capitalism doan either...we's back ter the begininnin' ain;t we...the problem is not in any *system* of eco-socio-political organization, sugar. Doan ya ee? The problem of evil is inside us--WE are the problem,Rev...not some system we devise.

WHATEVER the system, there are folks who will find a means ter achieve they aims in desipicable ways. Evil is in us'uns....this is the hard truth few modern folks can stand--they pine away fer a magic system of "enlightened" government and technology that will release a perfect world from the clutches of the imperfect one we've inherited.

Baby chile' that never do happen...really. We'uns gotta see that it is IN US'UNS that a new begining has to occur--not by devisin' some new philosophy wif a new government. But ter change the man insside is harder than even the yeoman task of tryin' ter change the world systems. Could that be why so few folks attempt it?

MAc..ya wrote: "Have we not? The mouths that curse us often chew our bread."

This is so true, says it all.

Aunty Belle said...

Hail -Pig...c'mon back...I'se gonna change the topic real soon. Missin' ya.

Reverend X said...

Auntie,
Well, theere is our impasse. Niether one of us can state with any certainty what happened at the first moment of time. Personally I do not believe there was a first moment. Time is merely a linear view of events percieved by us due to our handicapped dimensioonal view. But the key word is "believe". Short of travelling to that instant, I wioll never be able to say what happenned as fact. Belief implies ignorance to fact. You believe in an ultimate being as creator. I don't deny the possibility, but I do question your description of that being. It is a leap of faith to say "There is a God". It is a leap of human arrogance to claim to know the will of God. It is insanity to inflict that insight onto anyone else.
I was not implying my Library was bigger or better. We all know it's how you use it. I was implying that in 2 centuries the text of the bible has altered significantly as has its message along with those changes. It was not a disproof of the Trinity, but an example of how easily one altered word can change the entire lesson.

You see Para, the corruption in the heart of Man you speak of is no reason to surrender the quest for better governance, philosophy, and ideals. Yes, we are imperfect but we are also capable of improvement. You utilize concepts like "Born Bad" as a cop out. The baby grabbing the cookie now has food for future hunger. Its survivability in comparison to the other infant has increased. That is instinct. We temper that instinct with conscience. As adults, some of us give the cookie back realizing that we have an even better chance of surviving as a team than as one fat cookie eater in a playpen with starving others. That concept is lost on most people nowadays. True security comes from not having anyone who wants to hurt you. Walls and weapons just make you a target.Do unto others as they willl some day do unnto you.
That's why I suggest not bombing other peoples. You are right, it might not work. But we done tried it your way and we know that doesn't work, so it is time to try something new. You have failed, move aside. If this idea fails, we will try other ones. Eventually we will succeed.

maccusgermanis said...

RevX

... no Jyhadists in Iraq prior to our invasion.

Do you mean to imply that there were no muslims in Iraq or that they were all munafiq?

Yje Iraqi insugents are not on a Jyhad, they are fighting for their land.

And what are the Iraqi security forces fighting for?

Less than 4% of captured and or killed fighters in Iraq have been foriegn Jyhadist fighters.

"We are killing them," a senior Pentagon official said yesterday, when asked about shrinking foreign-fighter numbers in Iraq."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051128-100829-2969r.htm

And we do not kill indiscriminately? Tell thaT ONE TO THE 130,000 iRAQIS WE KILLED SO FAR!!!

130,000 of 26,783,383(July 2006 est. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/iz.html) is about 0.49%, well less than 4%, so is it supposed to matter or not?

How we treat Iraqis is not history it is a current event.

With notable exceptions our soldiers afford much respect to Iraqis.

911 was not carried out by Arabs and we bombed Iraq on the 10th.

Both lies. 9/11 was carried out by arabs, though their arabness was not to blame. They all also happened to be believers that a pedophille, murdering liar was the paragon of humanity. We did not bomb Iraq on the 10th of september, 2001, though now that you remind me, I do recall that Iraq had begun to activate radar targeting systems upon US/UK aircraft.


Now please tell me why we are there in the first place?

Saddam had not honored terms of peace to a prior war.

Gimme the noble cause that our best and brightest are fucking dying for!!

And what is the reason that their efforts must be riduculed by the likes of you?

Pleasae. What is the reason? WMD? nope!!

WMD has been found.

They were a threat? nope.

Ramzi Yousef, WTC bombing one carried an Iraqi passport. How do you suppose he got that?

Saddam gassed his own people? No shit who sold them the weapons, charts and plotting schematics? We did.

It is true that we had at one time supported Saddam as the lessor of evils between Iraq and Iran, that calculation can never be precise.

Reverend X said...

Unbelievable. Do you work for Fox news r just a fan club member? If you could please link any claims you make it would be appreciated. Here's how...

.. no Jyhadists in Iraq prior to our invasion.

Do you mean to imply that there were no muslims in Iraq or that they were all munafiq?

Jyhadist is defined as a devout muslim engaged in a holy war. There were no Jyhadists in Iraq prior to our invasion. Iraq was the least wahabist/most westernized of all Arab Countries.


Yje Iraqi insugents are not on a Jyhad, they are fighting for their land.

And what are the Iraqi security forces fighting for?

They are fighting for the "Coalition Command" thru their proxy goverment of Iraq. You don't read much do you. OK, let's try this: If 85% of the population of a democracy wants something a certain way, what do you call a Govt agency doing the opposite?

Less than 4% of captured and or killed fighters in Iraq have been foriegn Jyhadist fighters.

"We are killing them," a senior Pentagon official said yesterday, when asked about shrinking foreign-fighter numbers in Iraq."

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20051128-100829-2969r.htm

shrinking? Almost non-existent even though the insurgency is growing every day. Hmmm, in percentage of whole I guess shrinking is the correct term. So even less Jyhadists than I had previously stated.


And we do not kill indiscriminately? Tell thaT ONE TO THE 130,000 iRAQIS WE KILLED SO FAR!!!

130,000 of 26,783,383(July 2006 est. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/iz.html) is about 0.49%, well less than 4%, so is it supposed to matter or not?

Your response to the killing of over a huyndred thousand civilians killed in 3 years is that there are still a bunch left? You are either the dumbest or coldest person I have ever argued with. If I killed 5% of your family would you not care because you still had a bunch of them left?



How we treat Iraqis is not history it is a current event.

With notable exceptions our soldiers afford much respect to Iraqis.

Our soldiers should not be in a position to afford them anything. We should not be there. And with 130'000 dead, that is far more than a few notable exceptions. That is 130,000 exceptions. Add to that the wounded, orphaned, crippled , detained, tortured and emotionallu damaged Iraqis and your few notble exceptions becomes an unforgivable amount of atrocity.


911 was not carried out by Arabs and we bombed Iraq on the 10th.

Both lies. 9/11 was carried out by arabs, though their arabness was not to blame. They all also happened to be believers that a pedophille, murdering liar was the paragon of humanity. We did not bomb Iraq on the 10th of september, 2001, though now that you remind me, I do recall that Iraq had begun to activate radar targeting systems upon US/UK aircraft.

Here is where the proof begins Go from there to the many Scientific, investigatorial and informational sites explaining what happened on 9-11. PRofessor Jones from BYU has proven mathematicaly and forensicly that the crap we were told is a lie.

...Now please tell me why we are there in the first place?

Saddam had not honored terms of peace to a prior war.

That being the case, then he would have been in violation of UN mandate and any action taken against Iraq would have been in accordance to a directive from the UN security Council and any action would have been with the blessing and cooperation of the UN. We had no such approval. The conditions for Peace were established by the UN. We had no authority to unilaterally enforce our interpretation of any UN mandate.

Gimme the noble cause that our best and brightest are fucking dying for!!

And what is the reason that their efforts must be riduculed by the likes of you?

Ridiculed? You dumb ass I am ridiculing you!!! Note the difference. I am trying to save our troops lives, limbs, and liberty.I have done a great deal of work in the "Support our Troops" field. Unlike the Pro war crowd I believe our troops are best supported by not beiong killed while working as security for the oil industry. Ghost Writer
Pleasae. What is the reason? WMD? nope!!

WMD has been found.

No, they have not... If you have somehow found evidence to the contrary, please show your reference

They were a threat? nope.

Ramzi Yousef, WTC bombing one carried an Iraqi passport. How do you suppose he got that?


so the Nation of Iraq was invaded and occupied for a passport? Was the passport real?




"Nuff said?

Reverend X said...

oops here's the links...

Iraq in 2002

Here's wghere to start about 9-11

Support Our Troops

WMD report

that's about it....

Ben said...

Dear Belle

It took me a while - between writing for my clients and watching the World Cup Soccer matches (Switzerland out against the Ukraine today) - to figure out a fair answer to your question.

You wondered about "no good/bad" and added: "Please hep me see what/how this is meant."

It is this: As long as a thought is along the line of good and bad, it is in duality. In other words: it is human. BEYOND that, in ONENESS, such splitting is not possible, otherwise it is not oneness.

You wrote yourself: "He is beyond ever'thang"

Yes. That includes judging. Thinking along the lines of good and bad IS judging. It is dual.

We need this as humans. A presence that is ALL does not. Again: it IS all there is, including all thought.

Can this suffice for today? We'll undoubtedly get there on another day again :-)

Thank you!

Ben

NB: About our future. I believe we CAN change the world one person at a time and we have a better chance to succeed than to fail. I laid down the basics of everyone's role in this - my law of the universe as I see it - in two post in January on my blog. They were called "I am it" (JAN 26)and "Do me a favour." (JAN 27) and I invite you to read them.

maccusgermanis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
maccusgermanis said...

If you could please link any claims you make it would be appreciated. Here's how...

Oops, Perhaps you'd intended something more like this.

Jyhadist is defined as a devout muslim engaged in a holy war. There were no Jyhadists in Iraq prior to our invasion. Iraq was the least wahabist/most westernized of all Arab Countries.

Jyhad is typically a "gamers term". Jihad, a call to "Fight those who have not faith in God" is what "Saddam called for prior to an American invasion." Dubai is a "more modern", and more "liberal" Arabian country than pre-war Iraq was.

They [Iraqi security forces] are fighting for the "Coalition Command" thru their proxy goverment of Iraq. You don't read much do you. OK, let's try this: If 85% of the population of a democracy wants something a certain way, what do you call a Govt agency doing the opposite?

85% of Iraqi's want what in your unlearned opinion? You ignore that "a political process is in place" and "those elected are beginning to govern." Who doesn't read much?

So even less Jyhadists than I had previously stated.

Jyhad "is a card game." Jihad is not a race. Pointing to small and declining numbers of foreign fighters, does not address how you presume to know the will of 85% of Iraqi's.

Your response to the killing of over a huyndred thousand civilians killed in 3 years is that there are still a bunch left? You are either the dumbest or coldest person I have ever argued with. If I killed 5% of your family would you not care because you still had a bunch of them left?

My response did illustrate that your claim that only 4% of belligerants in Iraq were foreign fighters is ridiculous. You had meant to imply that number was insignificant, did you not? By YOUR, not my, rationale the supposed 130,000 is even more insignificant, as a number.
"Are all those dead in Iraq to be attributed to American action?" Caring is fine, but the numbers do point to a certian level of discrimination on the part of the US. Have you any doubt that our military would have killed more if, as previously suggested, our military had killed indescriminatelty? Of course "38475 min to 42889 max" points to even more discrimination being practised.

Our soldiers should not be in a position to afford them anything. We should not be there. And with 130'000 dead, that is far more than a few notable exceptions. That is 130,000 exceptions. Add to that the wounded, orphaned, crippled , detained, tortured and emotionallu damaged Iraqis and your few notble exceptions becomes an unforgivable amount of atrocity.

You wanna give a link in an attempt to substantiate your 130,000 number. While your at it, attempt to demonstrate how whichever number is the sole responsibilty of US actions.

Here is where the proof begins Go from there to the many Scientific, investigatorial and informational sites explaining what happened on 9-11. PRofessor Jones from BYU has proven mathematicaly and forensicly that the crap we were told is a lie.

As if there weren't enough crackpots to collabarate in your theory, you had to post a link to your own site. How pathetic.

That being the case, then he would have been in violation of UN mandate and any action taken against Iraq would have been in accordance to a directive from the UN security Council and any action would have been with the blessing and cooperation of the UN. We had no such approval. The conditions for Peace were established by the UN. We had no authority to unilaterally enforce our interpretation of any UN mandate.

Our planes enforced the no fly-zones. Our generals sat across from the Iraqi military in brokering the peace. We had clear cause for war.

Ridiculed? You dumb ass I am ridiculing you!!! Note the difference. I am trying to save our troops lives, limbs, and liberty.I have done a great deal of work in the "Support our Troops" field. Unlike the Pro war crowd I believe our troops are best supported by not beiong killed while working as security for the oil industry. Ghost Writer

404 lol, If the current Iraqi war was about oil, then where is the oil?

Pleasae. What is the reason? WMD? nope!!

"WMD has been found."

No, they have not... If you have somehow found evidence to the contrary, please show your reference

"WMD has been found."

They were a threat? nope.

Without attempting to give any full appraisal of pre-war Iraq's military capability and therefore threat. I believe they did "mean to kill our soldiers."

so the Nation of Iraq was invaded and occupied for a passport? Was the passport real?

Perhaps, this is not clear casus belli but in light of other events it does allude to Iraqi involvment in the previous WTC attacks.

"Nuff said?

To convince me? Or to prevent yourself from looking foolish? Nope.

Bird said...

validity schmidity.

the bible is just a collection of stories -told by men. authors (and editors) have agendas - purposes. and those agendas and purposes don't necessarily match up with god's (cause who really knows -be ware the fellow who says he does - he's been smoking hash - hah!)

ain't no word of god in the bible. just the word of men who think they know, or wish they know, or pretend to know the word of god.

and it isn't even a primary source.

writ years after the fact and edited centuries after the fact. and the facts ain't even verifiable. there ain't no facts - just stories. (ok, yeah, yeah, historians have verified there was a preacher named jesus - and there was a trial, etc. but that's about it - fact wise.)

some good stories though.

stories that make you think.

but given that the bible was written by jewish folk, who have a storytelling tradition - what would you expect?

Aunty Belle said...

Ben,sweet puddin' thanks--I will go read yore january (before mah time in blogworld) posts.

Rev, looky, doll baby, the bible ain't rewritten or messed wif (other than lins and feminists) on account of they is SO many of em' out theah that folks know better--

I get that you cannot abide the idea of God--that would me serious changes fer ya...so doan worry, be happy, I ain't out ter convert as I done noted heretofore. Jes' tht ya cannot make those sweepin' gernealizations heah and exect 'em ter stand. Ya call it whatever--Big BAng or Bust....I'se pretty stoopid, honey, but ain't yet stooopid enuf ter believe them atoms invented theyselves. So intellegent somepin' did it--ya can call it whatevber ya likes.

Now sugar pie, doan fuss wif MAc over the UN--this heah is Aunty Belle's up close, eyeball ter eyeball shur nuff' knowedge: the place is a cesspool of greed, graft, lyin' and cheatin' like nothin on this earth--it is full of pus. Ya wanna do the world a favor--leave off worrying about the USA gubmint and git ter work on that tower of shame.

Fer shur doan even half think that the UN has a molecule of credibily or moral suasion. Any appeal to the UN as arbiter of international politics is an emetic.

Maccusgermanis, good show. WMD have been found and reported...doan see how any one missed that.

AND youse right! Iraq ain't about oil--at least not fer USA. (China is another matter).

Plain truth troops--China is suckin' the oil life outa eveywhar...so get 'cha selfs ready: ya can be "dominated" by Uncle or by Mao-men.

Iraq is a multi level geopolitical necessity. China is bigger than ya might think in the equation.

Aunty Belle said...

Bird, we been heah, I think.

This is what I'd expect, honey--that you have an obligation as a teacher to study enough ter see that even scholars who are not religious describe the bible as unique and unduplicated in clarity, historicity, cohesivness and prophetic alignment.

You do not have to believe it chile' but yore critcisms is not scholarly or even moderately supported.

The bible is not discredited because men wrote it. (God inspired it, the writers were instruments) Men wrote the rules ter ya baseball too, but doan heah no moanin' over that.

Looky...I'se gonna use our friend Ben to make a light analogy.

Ben is a painter. He loves his work. He sees that some of his creation on canvas is sufferin' on account of they makes the same mistake. So Ben paints new creature into the painting and the newcomer lets the others know that he just came from Ben's brush and this is what Ben is communicatin'...but they gang up on newcomer...but what newcomer said would happen, does happne...and so on for a while until Ben decides to enter his own paintin' and show his creation how to avoid their miseries...

Mah point is simple--presupposin' God, how does ya'll think He would communicate (other than the glory of creation)?

Now this is what is so funny--ya'll know folks is willin' ter pay palm readers or mediums etc fer "knowledge", but thesesame folks deny God? Silly. Jes' illogical silliness. If there was a medium t hat was right 10% of the time that the bible is right then the world would beat a path to that medium....

This I have jes' seen: A doctor comes home and tells his wife that her broother has liver cancer. Wife replies, "That's not true. It can't be true because Bill looks very healthy. He has never been really ill. You are wrong"

Doc to wife: I know this is a blow, but I ran the tests twice. He is gravely ill."

Wife: No he is not. He can't be ill, beacuse we were going to Machu Pichu
next year. He can't be ill becasue his two boys are not outa college yet. You may be a doctor, but you are wrong on this."

Doc to wife:" You know I love you, you know I would not tell you this if it were not true, and I know how hard this is, but it is true. I am a doctor, I've run the tests, seen the evidence. He has liver cancer."

Wife: " Stop saying that! I don;t care if you're a doctor. You're an idiot to say that that healthy man is ill. He was skiing yesterday for heaven's sake! I'll find another doctor, you are wrong.You have to be wrong, I cannot face life without Bill."

See, Bird? We deny thangs not because we have investigated them and know the truth about them, we deny those thangs that we do not want to accept because they mean an upheaval in our carefully orchestrated world.

suzisword said...

oh how i wish i could read it all in my own time. rev and ben seem to have lots of head knowledge but no heart knowing. so round and round the garden like a teddy bear. anyway the example about the MATIX is like the kingdom of GOD on earth. and rev.... we know the will of GOD, JESUS is the expressed will of GOD, what did he do??? you ask... he healed the sick ,bound up the broken hearted, set the captives free, (mind bondage) etc etc. so you see that is our commision on earth as believers of GOD. im not gonna get in too deep as i have no time, BUT my freinds when the fullness of time has come every knee(and your will) WILL bow and every tongue WILL confess that Jesus Christ is LORD. thanx aunty belle for speaking truth where there is deception.

suzisword said...

oops the matrix is not the kingdom of GOD, but when we get free from the matrix( mind bondage) then we are free indeed.when the SON has set you free you are free indeed......

Reverend X said...

Mac,
Nice... What was your point again? Have you evidenced or established a realistic Iraqi threat to the
US? Shown a WMD development plan initiated post Persian gulf one. Shown any wmd that were not listed by Saddam's son in law to the UN in his report of Iraqi wmd and their subsequent destruction

" If 85% of the population of a democracy wants something a certain way, what do you call a Govt agency doing the opposite?

85% of Iraqi's want what in your unlearned opinion?"

I made no claim. It was a hypothetical question used to point out a basic premise of Democracy. The government of a Democracy is not the Nation, nor is it legitimate if it acts contrary to rhe wishes of its people. That is the basis of Democrativc Goverance. How that relates to the subject at hand? I am not going to spoon feed you anymore. Sorry. You need to look at polls, militant demands, and activities going on in Iraq. Compare those to the Governments policies. Figure it out for yourself. Who are the Iraqi security forces working for?

What is going on there? Don't be afraid to ask for someone other than Fox Clones for info on the effects of 3 years of Occupation. The Situation We Have Created

We invaded. We destroyed infrastructure. We disbanded their Army. We are responsible for everything that has happened there! Continuued occupation will only cause more problems.

You started this debate with a series of unfounded and or false allegations. You still have not supplied a reason for the war. Whether 50,000 0r 500,000 Iraqi's have died it does not change the facts. It is an unacceptable number. Your WMD evidence is sad. Your acceptance of this atrocity is sadder yet. I can not convince you that we have even engaged in an illegal war or fallen onto the path of Evil. Where is the oil. 9.9 billion a quarter in profits for Exxon/mobile... Did you think they would share the oil? Did you think War for Oil meant we would be recieving it? I said that our troops deserved our support and that does not mean sending them to Iraq to fight and die for the Oil Industry.

Yes, I linked a 9-11 page consisting of links to the most thorough investigators of 911. I am not the creator of any of the content on that page. Even the flash video was made by someone else... So why is it pathetic? You are implying that I am self referencing facts here? Moron, look at the page. No self referencing and no facts documented by me. I told you to start learning there, because there you will find the best reference tools. Way to go on actually trying to learn anything.

Now for a rant. Look, some day you are going to be forced to admit some personal responsibility in the events of our times. Repetition of party propaganda got us into this mess. In 2003 I argued with everyone who would listen. I told the Pro War Sheeple that this would happen just like it did. I said we would lose. Why? Not psychic... but every military in history that has done what we did has failed for the same reasons we have FAILED. YOU CAN NOT WIN A WAR AGAINST A POPULATION. yOU CAN NOT OCCUPY A COUNTRY AND MAKE THE POPULATION LIKE YOU! You can not kill people and expect their families to do nothing.

Belle,
What sweeping generalities are you referring to? If i don't know, I say so. If my point is speculative or only a posssibility, I say so. I dumbed down the physics to make it understandable for everyone. You have responded with "Wrong cuz god says..." to every point. Fortunately i was not arguing with you for it's effect upon you. The people I was reaching are the third parties reading this. Call it Devil's advocate or simply an objective opinion, my intent was to shake readers from your hypnotic BS. It is too easy to fall into the grips of hopeless inactivity. Original sin and blame of others takes the personal responsibility off of people. "I am contributing to evil? Well, it is not my fault. I was born sinful. And look at those guys. They are worse. Why should I do anything positive to change when they are worse and I was born this way?"

I say I am trying to fix the country I love. You tell me of the Evils of the UN, Islam, everyone but the one country that you yourself could do anything about. Why is that righteous or patriotic? Didn't Jesus say something about getting the beanm out of your own eye before going after the speck in anothers? I love America. I do not slander it. I expose the problems My Country has because there are too many people either ignoring those problems or actively enabling them. I'm out for a bit. I have business to attend to in a custody battle. Drop me a line.

Bird said...

pish posh!

the notion that god inspired the bible is certainly a supportable and credible criticism. to proclaim absolutely the bible as word of god - that is ridiculous and quite unscholarly and unacademic.

the bible was written by men. we can argue til the cows come home about from where those men drew their inspiration. who claims it as the word of god - the men who wrote it. but it's a pointless argument. you cannot ask people to take for fact something which is faith-based.

god has inspired my blog writing. do you believe it? i say it's so. i can enlist a dozen people that will say it's so. does that make it so? i can pull out myths from centuries ago. they are divinely inspired. in fact, if you look at world mythology, you can track themes and cohesiveness, and unity. and divinity. must be the word of god. gilgamesh gives us a wonderful look at the cultural times in which it is set - doesn't make it divinely inspired or the details fo the story factual (though it is beautiful literature - far more lovely than the bible in terms of aesthetic value).

the bible may give us a sense of history - just as myths give us a sense of the times from which they hail - a cultural sense. but the "facts" of the stories are not facts. what scholar says they are? yes, yes, as i said before, scholars can trace that indeed a preacher man existed - but scholars do not say that preacher man was the son of god, anymore than they say that a burning bush spoke to moses. that's story.

grand story, but story nonetheless.

you may choose to believe the bible as the word of god, but to expect others to do so and to discredit others who do not believe it - that's nonsense.

religion is belief. now, belief can be very valid, but a blanket application of that belief - the idea that all must believe a certain way about god - that's fundamentalism and doesn't allow for freedom of worship, nor separation of church from state.

quite a while back, i stated i had a fear and distruct of christian fundamentalists - and that's why - because fundies of any stripe do not, deep at their core, support freedom of worship. they want everyone to believe as they believe. and in their arrogance, they pity those of us who do not believe as they believe and think that we are astray or can be lead to the light, or forced to it through politics.

Bird said...

pish posh!

the notion that god inspired the bible is certainly a supportable and credible criticism. to proclaim absolutely the bible as word of god - that is ridiculous and quite unscholarly and unacademic.

the bible was written by men. we can argue til the cows come home about from where those men drew their inspiration. who claims it as the word of god - the men who wrote it. but it's a pointless argument. you cannot ask people to take for fact something which is faith-based.

god has inspired my blog writing. do you believe it? i say it's so. i can enlist a dozen people that will say it's so. does that make it so? i can pull out myths from centuries ago. they are divinely inspired. in fact, if you look at world mythology, you can track themes and cohesiveness, and unity. and divinity. must be the word of god. gilgamesh gives us a wonderful look at the cultural times in which it is set - doesn't make it divinely inspired or the details fo the story factual (though it is beautiful literature - far more lovely than the bible in terms of aesthetic value).

the bible may give us a sense of history - just as myths give us a sense of the times from which they hail - a cultural sense. but the "facts" of the stories are not facts. what scholar says they are? yes, yes, as i said before, scholars can trace that indeed a preacher man existed - but scholars do not say that preacher man was the son of god, anymore than they say that a burning bush spoke to moses. that's story.

grand story, but story nonetheless.

you may choose to believe the bible as the word of god, but to expect others to do so and to discredit others who do not believe it - that's nonsense.

religion is belief. now, belief can be very valid, but a blanket application of that belief - the idea that all must believe a certain way about god - that's fundamentalism and doesn't allow for freedom of worship, nor separation of church from state.

quite a while back, i stated i had a fear and distruct of christian fundamentalists - and that's why - because fundies of any stripe do not, deep at their core, support freedom of worship. they want everyone to believe as they believe. and in their arrogance, they pity those of us who do not believe as they believe and think that we are astray or can be lead to the light, or forced to it through politics.

Aunty Belle said...

Rev, now yer jes' plain mis-stating facts- An' darlin, it seems that was deliberate. Doan try no bait and switch wif an ole cracker lady, puddin'.

You say to Aunty Belle: "I dumbed down the physics to make it understandable for everyone. You have responded with, 'Wrong cuz god says...' to every point."

Rev, I did no such. You write that sort of drivel now fer the benefit of yore third parties--hoping they won't go back and read and check--but I did not simplyfy physics to "God says..."

I said a Big Bang or Bust comes from somethang--yer call it wht yer want--but I ain't yet stoopid enough ter follow yore plan of an atom making its ownself, honey. It ain't mah knittin' ter convince ya of God--it is mah thang to poke holes in the religion of scientism--that is to make science yore belief--science is ONLY uncovering what already is--discovering the laws of the universe we did not make. There is order in the cosmos that reflects an ordered intelligence--and we have the joy of discovering it. But it did not create itself--

Ya is frustrated cause they ain't no scientific answer fer the how, much less, why, of the universe--that's oK, but doan try to shoehorn yore truncated scientism into a discussion of "physics" that ain't supportable.


Ya misses points, I fear too sweetie--Aunty B did nver say that inactivity is OK--ya makes this silly sop up. Ya is playing wif them third party readers huh?

Cause if ya knows about gettin' beams outa eyes then ya knows about "feed the hungry, clothe the naked and go into all the world and preach the good news"--to whit: Ya have a savior, He will lead ya into the Way the Truth and the Life.

Rev, iffin' ya read the bible as yer claim--tell me what part of Jesus ya object to? Waht did he say that your reject?

Original sin ain't no warrant fer laying on your derriere, captain.

What original sin is, is a shorthand fer recognizing the problem is in us, not "out there" in some system of economics or gubmint---straighten yoreself out Rev, and doan worry about the country--when ya gets yoreself straighted up, others will take note and be inspired, mebbe follow suit, this way ya will change the country one fella at a time.

Member what I done wrote a few posts back--outlawin' religion won't save the world.

War came before religion: Cain bashed in Abel's haid afore there was the ten commandments. The problem of hatred human hearts is older than religion. This ain't Aunty's pessimism, this heah is realism. Not pessimistic--I know there is an answer: Christ.

I doan like ter preach, but Jesus can transform that heart of yor'n and mine iffin' we let Him--nothin' else will.

Feathered One....similin' here, sweet pea. Ya say, "you cannot ask people to take for fact something which is faith-based."

Rally? Why not?

I think ya does it every day. Logical error in that statement Bird---BECAUSE something is 'faith based' doan mean it is not factual.

Looky sugar, did ya have yore DNA checked agaisnt yore Daddy's? bet not...so youse going on faith that dad is yore dad--ya takes mama's word fer it, ya might look like dad--or look like his brother Henry...but on faith, you believe you are who dad says ya are. Not fact. jes' belief. But that doan mean ya ain't daddy's girl, jes cause ya believe even wif out factual proof.

Bird Beauty, let's us'uns think this out a minute, K? The proposition you offer is that "you cannot ask people to take for fact something which is faith-based."

When I goes ter the market fer milk, it is mah faith in the dairy farmers and the gubmint' inspectors and the bovine vet man that the milk I'se feedin' mah chillen's is not full o milk fever which will KILL them. So on "faith" I feed this milk ter mah loved ones...and so does you. But we doan KNOW fer a FACT that this milk is not contaminiated--we trust those whose job it is ter test the milk, cause we doan take no milk testin' kits ter the market so we can know fer a fact the milk is safe. We do the same in bidness, academia--name it--we live more of our lives "on faith" that on fact.

You an auto mechanic? Me neither. But it is faith--not proven fact--that I'se goin' on each time I turn the key in the buggy that the last fella to adjust mah brakes did so.But I doan know this fer a FACT.

Does ya see? We put our lives in the hands of others every day based on our faith in them or their superiors.

Now spiirtual life is more important than physical life, chile'. And the men who passed down teachings of Jesus was willin' ter let Herod behead them rather than deny what they knew of their Lord.

On top o that, lots of non-believers began ter believe and soon their own lives were at risk too....but somethang was different in these folks--they started livin' differently--the Christian would say they were letting Christ live in them, and His Strength, self conntrol, wisdom and courage was made manifest in these ordinary people.

They took care of each other, they did not carry on in immorality like their neighbors, but they still helped the hungry or the opppressed despite the behavior of the hungry or oppressed...doan wanna write a book heah..but this changed person multiplied by millions is why I believe that the bible is what it claims itself ter be. The "Fact" fer Aunty Belle is the changed way of livin' in folks. Not perfect--Christians is flawed humans, but the difference is this:
THEY DOAN TRY TO PASS THEIR SHORTCOMINGS OFF AS A GOOD THANG.

Instead, they know Christ forgives the contrite and provides the strength ter get up and get goin' again --in the right direction. Becomin' more Christ-like ain't a one time deal, sweetie pie, it is a process, some is further along than others in the process.

Now really--I does not think this is no forum fer evanglizin', doan wanna go that route...jes' mean ter show that it is clearly observable that you do take on faith what is not known by you as fact....no different than Christians do with trustin' the bible. That book can prove itself , iffin' one is of a mind ter test it-

But that also ain't mah point--mah point is that the anti-Christian , anti-biblical knee-jerk response of some in blogworld toward "faith based" beliefs is not logical. "Faith based" is not the equivalent of lacking facts. Things taken "on faith" are often very true as we have outlined above.

An' honey, Aunty ain't discrediitin' those who doan take the bible to be inspired of God--tha's fine iffin' they doan...waht is not fine is iffin' they discredit Christians fer taking the scripture as inspired of God--looky--ya cannot prove that the bible is NOT inspired by God---no proof available--so iffin' some say yes, and others say no, OK...but since, Bird, ya do not have proof it is not, you should be consistent--stop dissin' folks who do.

As fer scholars admitting that the preacher-teacher Jesus lived and was factual-actual, but that this is not proof He was Son of God. True. Scholars cannot prove --or disprove- that.

So, we have ter look at Christ as a man and see waht we think--he was a nutzoid who made himself the son of God and announced he had a Kingdom elesewahre, and that He would take us all there iffin we wanted ter go wif him--what a looney tune! Must a been eatin' funny grass up in the high meadows? The funny grass eatin' fella jes' lucked up though and said some deep wise thangs. Odd. Well, even blind hogs turn up an acorn onc't in awhile.

Seems though, He was abble ter debate the scholars of his day and they was mightily worried that they had no answer fer him--so they feared him.

ya fears fundies who wanna force ever'one ter believe as they do? Yeah, honey me too.

Freedom of belief is yore birthright as a chile of God...God doan force ya--no fundies better be forcin' either. God wants ya ter come ter Him on your own will--me too. Ain't heah to force or even persuade--but to defend the *intellignent choice* of those who DO believe from a growing careless-- and uncharitatble-- calumny of self rightous non-believers who try ter paint Christians as droolin' freaks with half a brain on bun. Very intelligent folks believe that Jesus was who He said He was. That belief doan mean they forfeiited they intelligence, Bird Beauty.

Well....ain't fer us to settle heah and now who Jesus was...but ya know, that is exactly the question He puts to each of us: "Who do you say that I am?"

He is either a wierdo with delusions of divine grandeur or....He was the Son of God.

Reverend X said...

Aunty,
You can not claim fact merely because you have faith. That is what Bird's sentence meant. Not the subversion you claim.
Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man, yet he called the men he spoke to the Sons of God.

Just an observation. He was great, no matter his lineage. He had the courage to stand up for the poor, hungry, weak... And he died for something that modern day Christians do not seem to value anymore. With all the talk we hear everyday bout Christian Values, does anyone talk about the only thing he died for? He did not die to keep homosexuals from marrying. He did not die to occupy other l;ands. He died for forgiveness. Why have we not forgien our enemies as he would havbe. Why have we not ceased in our retributions? Why have we not turned the other cheek to those who stand accused of transgressions against us?
WWJD? He would love. He would forgive. He would not kill.

The only people he deemed worthy of violence were not gay, liberal, or peaceful. Yhey were money changers, interest collectors an self righteous officials who claimed to know the will of God. I respect him greatly. For his life... His teachings... and I wish his death had not overshadowed those things.

Aunty Belle said...

Rev, ya say " You can not claim fact merely because you have faith. That is what Bird's sentence meant."

Rev, when fur is flyin' take more care to read closely--read mah comments again sugar....I did *not* say what you think--What I did say was that Bird cannot claim that because something is accepted by faith that such does not mean that it is ipso facto not factual. Faith does not preclude the possiblity or probabliity of fact.

Jesus dies to make forgiveness possible--not a blanket automatic ATM God. Forgivness is available fer all--no matter what has been done--but it is not unconditional forgivness--it requires two choices
1) repent fer yore misdeeds
2) reslove ter follow Christ

So those folks with whom Jesus spent time,was all manner of sinful folks--who our of love for Jesus reformed their ways--no more cheating (Zaccheus) extortion (tax collectors) prostitution( woman with the 300 dollar jar of nard) and presumably some gay persons too--each left behind their sinful ways, Rev.

maccusgermanis said...

X
Mac,
Nice... What was your point again? Have you evidenced or established


"a realistic Iraqi threat to the US?"

"Shown a WMD development plan initiated post Persian gulf one. Shown any wmd that were not listed by Saddam's son in law to the UN in his report of Iraqi wmd and their subsequent destruction"

Okay, your obviously having difficulty actually clicking on the links so here is an excerpt from the previously linked article.


"David Kay, the former chief U.S. weapons inspector who was hailed by the press last year for pronouncing Iraq WMD-free, shared some interesting observations with Congress this past January about goings-on at al Tuwaitha in 2000 and 2001.

"[The Iraqis] started building new buildings, renovating it, hiring some new staff and bringing them together," Kay said. "And they ran a few physics experiments, re-ran experiments they'd actually run in the '80s."

"Fortunately, from my point of view," he added, "Operation Iraqi Freedom intervened and we don't know how or how fast that would have gone ahead. ... Given their history, it was certainly an emerging program that I would not have looked forward to their continuing to pursue.""



" If 85% of the population of a democracy wants something a certain way, what do you call a Govt agency doing the opposite?
I made no claim. It was a hypothetical question used to point out a basic premise of Democracy.


The implication was clear, and still you define it as a question "to point out a basic premise of Democracy." Questions that point out things are also known as rhetorical. Here is nevertheless, your answer. I call 85% (recall these numbers are hypothetical) of anyone overuling the basic rights of any of the remaining 15% (again hypothetical) tyranny. Even if your violent friends did approach 85% of the population, which I doubt, that would not excuse the abondonment of Iraqis that strive for freedom.

The government of a Democracy is not the Nation, nor is it legitimate if it acts contrary to rhe wishes of its people. That is the basis of Democrativc Goverance. How that relates to the subject at hand? I am not going to spoon feed you anymore.

I have provided you with many more, apparently still unread links, than you have me. Who is being spoon fed here? Yes that question is rhetorical, as I am already convinced of the answer.

Sorry. You need to look at polls, militant demands, and activities going on in Iraq."Compare those to the Governments policies."
Figure it out for yourself. "Who are the Iraqi security forces working for?"


What is going on there? Don't be afraid to ask for "someone other than Fox Clones for info" on the "effects of 3 years of Occupation."
"The Situation We Have Created"


You started this debate with a series of unfounded and or false allegations.

Name them. That statement itself is yet another of your false allegations. It is you that have been refuted on each of your points.

You still have not supplied a reason for the war.

Several links have pointed to the fact that Saddam had broken terms of peace, not only by expelling UN inspectors but also by shooting at US pilots.

Whether 50,000 0r 500,000 Iraqi's have died it does not change the facts.

You started the numbers game. Now that we're apparently done you can put your shoes back on.

It is an unacceptable number.

War sucks, but is nothing worth fighting for? Even if you do not agree with the inital causes, How can you call openly for the betrayal of Iraqis that have striven for freedom? We will have encouraged them to arms, and abandoned them a second time.

Your WMD evidence is sad.

Not my evidence. And not what was feared and in some cases expected to exist. The Bush Admin. does seem to have oversold WMD. But you are a fool to believe that WMD's, however preliminary or degraded in form, were not found. It is more foolish to think that Saddam, being encouraged by your brand of appeasement, would have continued to shine his halo after inspectors were gone.

Your acceptance of this atrocity is sadder yet.

Welcome to the world of grown-ups. Bad things do happen and occaisionally it is good people, with good cause, that do them.

I can not convince you that we have even engaged in an illegal war or fallen onto the path of Evil.

Not with your lazy slur and retreat tactics.

Where is the oil. 9.9 billion a quarter in profits for Exxon/mobile...

Why would Exxon/Mobile embark on a war for oil, when"they had access to Iraqi oil before the war."

Did you think they would share the oil?

That is how they make their money. Oil in storage does not create wealth.

Did you think War for Oil meant we would be recieving it?

Actually, I thought the term "war for oil" was complete nonsense. Sorry for the confusion.

I said that our troops deserved our support and that does not mean sending them to Iraq to fight and die for the Oil Industry.

Another, unfounded slur.

Yes, I linked a 9-11 page consisting of links to the most thorough investigators of 911. I am not the creator of any of the content on that page. Even the flash video was made by someone else... So why is it pathetic? You are implying that I am self referencing facts here? Moron, look at the page. No self referencing and no facts documented by me. I told you to start learning there, because there you will find the best reference tools. Way to go on actually trying to learn anything.

I did mean to imply that you were self referencing. If this is not the case then.... congratulations on finding other "morons" to share your "delusions."

Now for a rant.

Now you plan to rant. I'm glad you clearly delineated it, or else I might have confused it with your normal absurdity

Look, some day you are going to be forced to admit some personal responsibility in the events of our times. Repetition of party propaganda got us into this mess.

Like the mindless repetitions that you submit?

In 2003 I argued with everyone who would listen.

That far back?

I told the Pro War Sheeple that this would happen just like it did. I said we would lose.

You've not been proven right on that. -must be why you are so determined to undermine the efforts of US soldiers and pro-democracy Iraqis-

Why? Not psychic...

Clearly not

but every military in history that has done what we did has failed for the same reasons we have FAILED.

Which militaries in what conflicts, do you compare this supposed failure?

YOU CAN NOT WIN A WAR AGAINST A POPULATION. yOU CAN NOT OCCUPY A COUNTRY AND MAKE THE POPULATION LIKE YOU!

You can't make anyone like you by force nor by appeasement. Respect is a necessary ingredient. An America that does not irrationally fear war, honors its commitments, and stands by its allies is respected more throughout the world, even counter-intuitively by the jihadists.

You can not kill people and expect their families to do nothing.

No shit, really? Yes this too is a rhetorical question.

K9 said...

/bark bark bark

woo hoo hoo ya got a barn burner over heah aunty! well weve been down this road again and again. but for me it boils down to this:

a nation built on christian-judeo ideals offers the broadest freedom for the greatest spectrum of peoples, regardless of their religion or lack there of. the nature of man is what it is and as youve correctly noted it has not changed in essence over the millenia.

but heres what al qaeda wants you to know:

"what do we want from you?

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

pretty clear to me.
nicely punctuated with images of marines hacked up and hung up with their genitals stuffed into their mouths.

/grrrrrrrrrrr

Aunty Belle said...

Mac wrote: "War sucks, but is nothing worth fighting for?"

...........a hearty amen.

Dawg, thanky fer that wake-up call...uh huh...I'd like ter invite all ya'll who's worried about living in a nation of religious zealots ter decide iffin' you'd prefer Isam?

Islam is not static--they ain't plannin' ter leave ya'll alone, ya know.

Well chickens--Aunty cain't recal gettin' up ter fifty exchanges on one post....been real fine, but maybe that should do it. Look fer new topic on this heah BACK proch real soon.

Mr Q said...

I just came to make it 52. What the hell, all this is way above me.
Pardon my ignorance and lack of will for writing but this post is some force to reckon. Also pardon for not contributing for to the subject but if it keeps going it may be start to smell like this

Aunty Belle said...

Yeah, Q...think youse right...thas' why I'se puttin' this one outa its misery. New post tomorrow--c'mon by.

suzisword said...

been missing you folks, tried to pick up the threads here and there...... to bird, ben, rev and manymore..........."for the message of the cross are foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of GOD, for it is written; " i will desroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent i will frustrate. 1 corintians 1 v18 and then verse 27 say's " GOD chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise;.....you see when we believers read the word we read it through the HOLY SPIRIT. when you read it you read it with your own mind and reasoning. and so you miss the spititual food. for us the word of GOD is food for our spirits cuz the word is living and active and cuts like a double-edge sword, it changes and transformes us and it is the very breath of GOD, it holds the same power today as it was when he SPOKE creation into being, the word of GOD is so powerful, thats why its relavency is under attack.... whatever you say does not change the truth, no matter how foolish it sounds..........

Reverend X said...

Dear Mac,


Me- You started this debate with a series of unfounded and or false allegations.

Your response- “Name them. That statement itself is yet another of your false allegations. It is you that have been refuted on each of your points.”

OK, I have limited time, but here is a partial list of your opening volley and what is wrong with the logic. It is not an exhaustive list, but it gets the point across. Also, any source link going to Newsmax begs the question that Newsmax is a reputable source of information or factual accounts of events. That is a debatable and justifiably refuted claim. Any source link going there is suspect atr the very least.



Freedom, is that what jihadist fight for?

You may later dodge the term Jyhadist and try to blame its introduction on me, but you brought it up. You beg the question that Iraqi insurgents are all Jyhadists. They are not.

Me-How's about we quit stationing armies in other countries and quit bombing other peoples.

Your response- Who'd we bomb on Sept. 10, 2001?

That has nothing to do with my suggestion. You are redirecting the debate to an unrelated topic.

Me-"Just make the first move in good faith and see what they do."

Your response-“Have we not? The mouths that curse us often chew our bread.”

Once again redirecting and this time onto an abstract view of History. I am suggesting we try a new approach. Something we have not done yet.

Me-"some times you have to take risks. fortunately, none of them have an airforce or a Navy so we have a little lee way in defensive posturing.

Your response- “True enough. And we are taking risks. We have soldiers at risk in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are a more discriminating weapon than bombing, able to lend aid or detroy as the daily evolving realities dictate."

False agreement and redirect to the 2 dimensional frame. I suggest we try an option other than sending in troops or bombs. You respond that soldiers are less indiscriminate than bombs. You beg the question that we must be there killing.

Me- "Let's just try not killing them and see how it goes for once."

Your response- “You seem to suggest that our military kills indescriminately. This is false.”

You are altering the statement and responding to a point I did not make. Not killing is not qualified by judgement. Once again you have redirected the argument onto a topic that you wish to debate. If that is your wish, begin a debate, but do not feign responses to my suggestions in order to introduce your unrelated arguments.

As anyone can see, you have not even responded to any points I made. Just used middle school debate tricks and over confidence to validate yourself. Logical fallacies sound good to people who do not realize they are fallacies. They are insulting to the rest of us.

maccusgermanis said...

Begs the question? Which question? You never got around to asking a question. You again made a statement, as insufferable know-it alls are prone to do. The phrase "debatable and justifiably refuted claim" is a nonsensical statement. What is debatable? What is justifiably refuted? Are they meant to be the same thing? Debate is a process of conversation, by which things may be proven or refuted, the ability to engage in said process is no proof itself.



I introduced the term jihadist. Jyhad is a trade name, used in conjuntion with werewolf games. Jihad is a term widely in use by the insurgence itself. Exceptions, such as Baathist, are hardly notable and do not disprove that jihad is the most common rallying cry among insurgents. You tried to paint insurgents as freedom fighters. What freedom are the fighting for when they oppose democratic elections?
This question that I asked does not qualify as unfounded, false, or even as an allegation. You have named zero "unfounded and or false allegations."



Again, It is you that have made the "unfounded and or false allegation" that we (US) were in some constant state of belligerence that we should "quit bombing other peoples." The "unrelated topic" as you call it demonstrates that we were being attacked by jihadist before the US military invaded Iraq.
Again, This question that I asked does not qualify as unfounded, false, or even as an allegation. You have named zero "unfounded and or false allegations."


Abstract? American aid to foreign nations is unparalleled. This is no abstraction. Again, It is you that have made the "unfounded and or false allegation" that we (US) have not acted in good faith and kindness with foreign nations.
Again, This question that I asked does not qualify as unfounded, false, or even as an allegation. You have named zero "unfounded and or false allegations."



The "false agreement" as you call it did concede that jihadist do not have a navy or air force in the modern sense. Their only means of projecting force, which they are committed to do, is through infiltration. This does offer some leeway for defensive posturing, though we, having force at our disposal, would be fools not to destroy any sanctuary of our self-sworn enemies.
We have been discriminating in the application of this force, contrary to your implications that we (US) have been indiscriminate. And as an added bonus, we have given the populace of Iraq the ability to form their own democratic republic.
Again, These statements do not qualify as unfounded or false allegations. You have named zero "unfounded and or false allegations."



It does seem that you were suggesting that our military kills indiscriminately. If this was not your intent, then it is your responsibility to clarify what was meant when you said "Let's just try not killing them and see how it goes for once." And while you're at it, clarify this mess of a sentence, "Not killing is not qualified by judgement."
My statement, in response to your implication that we should "try not killing them and see how it goes for once" is not an unfounded or false allegations. You have named zero "unfounded and or false allegations."



Once, again your "unfounded and false allegation" that I have not responded most directly to my understanding of what you are trying to say, colored as it may be by your abuse of English grammar, has been directly refuted.

Reverend X said...

Mac,
"begs the question" is a type of logical fallacy. When a person states an unproven claim as fact in order to justify another claim, that person is begging the question. So, you never took logic or critical thinking in school. Not a surprise.
Not killing= to not incur death.
What is implied here? What do I have to say to make it clearer?

False allegation- That Iraq was a threat to the US. It was not.

That it had WMD's. It did not. A Weapon of Mass Destruction must be capable of Mass Destruction. Nothing like that has been found.

The Newsmax quote about the Nuclear possibilities? Even if Newsmax was credible, off the record speculation and or possible misquoting is not sufficient.

maccusgermanis said...

Also, any source link going to Newsmax begs the question that Newsmax is a reputable source of information or factual accounts of events.

Your usage is incorrect and mis-applied whether

you intended the classical definition of "petitio principii"

or if you intended to use "begs the question" as synonymous with "raises the question"


You neither demonstrate circular reasoning nor ask the begged for question.



"Not killing [not to incur death] is not qualified by judgement."

I seriously doubt you can make the sentence any more clear. In matters of communication, you seem a very incapable individual.



Iraq may not have been the daily threat or irratant to your life, that would cause you to act, but pilots enforcing the no-fly zones were actually being shot at.



I don't no how ridiculous you plan to get with your refinement of what constitutes a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Both of us, should already know that no weapon can actually destroy mass. The phrase makes distinction between weapons more capable of selective targeting and those weapons whose radius of effect does preclude such targeting.

Although not weaponised, into a bomb, large amounts of fissionable material, along with key personel, were found. Still dangerous chemical weapons, however degraded, were found. I have previously provided you with links.


As for Newsmax, If you do not like the spoon, then feed yourself.