Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Allan from Fallbrook
Participantzk: No. This has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible. You’re missing my point pretty completely, and my mention of the First Council was an attempt to explain how slavish adherence to scripture can be dangerous and self-defeating because it’s based on a flawed and contradictory manuscript. I was also trying to explain that my beliefs are not based on the Bible, but rather the teachings of the Church, and therefore the mention of centuries of internal consistency.
This would give lie to the idea that these teachings would fall out of favor at some point in the future. Is it possible? Absolutely. But these same teachings have also evolved over time as well. Now before you jump to that “A-ha!” moment and point out the discursive nature of that comment, I would point out that it illustrates the robust nature (empirically speaking) of the doctrine, not the weakness.
As to indulging in a “fantasy”, sure, why not? After all, you and I aren’t arguing the same thing at all. You can deny God’s existence in your soul to your heart’s content, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so. Just as I can argue the contrary and it doesn’t make it so, either. Again, this comes down to religion versus spirituality and you cannot deny the existence of spirituality, regardless of its type.
I have faith. And, if, say, my other choice would be to embrace the clinical nihilism of a “bio-ethicist” like Peter Singer or the racist eugenics of a Margaret Sanger, uh, no thanks. I’m not trying to put forth a strawman here, just so we’re clear, just proffering the thought that Science with a capital “S” hasn’t done such a great job, either, in explaining the how or why of things that seem just beyond our understanding. Faith and Reason can co-exist quite effectively, and there are centuries upon centuries of great examples. Why would someone with free will and any sort of intellectual curiosity deny themselves any path, regardless of where it leads?
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]Historically the catholics were pretty aggressive prosyletizers.
Aren’t the catholics still trying to get their membership numbers up by focusing on Africa and south america vrecruiting?
My wife’s family is Catholic but I suspect they may be crypto Jews whose ancestors glad the inquisition and only pretended to be cathokics[/quote]
Scaredy: At the risk of sounding snarky, aren’t we all crypto Jews when it comes right down to it?
I’m Jesuit educated, so I completely agree about the “aggressive” proselytizing and it’s a big reason I don’t practice it myself. It goes without saying that the Catholic Church, like the United States, can alternate between good works and horrifingly bad behavior in equal measures.
That was one of my main points on not confusing religion and spirituality, along with not confusing the Bible with faith.
As a Catholic, I’m familiar with the liturgy, just as being a Jew, you’re undoubtedly familiar with the use of Judiaca and the highly ritualized religious rites it’s used for. I’m pretty sure that you can easily distinguish between religion and spirituality in that example.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=Allan from Fallbrook] As a Catholic, I believe the bible is contextual, not literal,[/quote]
What good is it having the word of god if you can interpret it any way you want? Doesn’t it then become the word of whoever is interpreting it however he wants, and not the word of god?[/quote]
zk: Except I don’t believe that at all. I hold to a theology that, from a telelogical and ontological vantage, has remained internally consistent and constant for centuries.
I believe that modern American evangelicals embrace a “faith” that is immature, incomplete and ill-formed. When I listen to Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum, for example, telling me what God “thinks”, I’m repulsed. For someone to hold that the true teachings of Christ would proffer a worldview bent on destruction and war is vile and reprehensible.
I believe in the inerrancy of God’s word, but I also understand that the Bible, as it exists today, is a product of politics (meaning the First Council of Nicaea and their determination as to what was acceptable and what was not, for example the Apocryphal writings), and that the writings contained were not contiguous, thus the contradictions and the flaws.
Let me put it another way. Scaredy clearly adheres to the Judiac proscription of giving full voice to God’s name, thus his use of the word “G-d” in previous postings. As he pointed out, he has a “religious identity”. That said, however, he probably doesn’t agree with all strains of Judaism. I could point to large groups of Israeli Jewry, for example, that hold some extremely hate-filled and bigoted views on Islam and espouse a territorial prerogative that is eerily similar to the Nazi views on Lebensraum. Given Scaredy’s moderate views, I doubt very much he’d have any truck with that ilk.
Everyone’s path to God (or not) is their own. I agree completely that having God shoved in your face is wrong. If someone asks me for me views, I’ll tell them. Otherwise, however they find God (or not), is their business alone. This also illustrates the dangers of conflating religiosity with spirituality. One can be intensely spiritual and never set foot in a house of worship. Whether we believe it or not, or accept it or not, God’s divine spark exists in all of us.
My point was that one shouldn’t tar all Christians with the same brush, in the same way that one shouldn’t tar all members of a certain ethnicity or class or whatever with the same brush.
You and Scaredy represent two of the more thoughtful and well-informed posters on this board and to embrace this sort of monolithic viewpoint, candidly, is beneath you.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]I’m guilty of being equally rude.
Sometimes I pretend to have never heard of jesus.
That’s gets their excitement level through the roof….
Then when they start I say Oooooohhhhhh. That jesus! Yeah I already have a religious identity. But thanks.”[/quote]
Scaredy: You’re treating all Christians as if they all believe the same things, from a dogmatic standpoint. This isn’t true.
It would be akin to treating all Jews, Orthodox or no, as Hasidim.
Amongst evangelical Christians, there is a strong desire to proselytize. Unfortunately, their view of God’s word isn’t the same as held by other denominations, Catholics being the largest. As a Catholic, I believe the bible is contextual, not literal, and even a brief reading of Spinoza exposes the many flaws and contradictions in the Bible.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]The urge to exercise power over others is a naturally corrupting instinct.[/quote]
“All power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.”
– Lord Acton
Participant[quote=meadandale]$45? Expensive?
I prefer Lagavulin to Laphroig and it’s almost 2x the price. Talk about expensive.[/quote]
Mead: Have you checked out Trader Joes? They have an impressive selection of single malts and their prices are pretty reasonable.
Also, Costco had a screaming deal on Lagavulin 16yo over the holidays. $56 a bottle (versus $85 in the stores).
They also had a Kirkland brand 20yo Speyside for $44.99, and it was excellent.
ParticipantRuss: All I know about McCain is that he loves to bomb shit (remember his little “Bomb Iran” ditty, set to The Beach Boys “Barbara Ann”?).
That dude would bomb a kitten factory if someone could make a case for it.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=spdrun]^^^
Exactly. And I’m not sure whether an intervention in Syria will make things there better or worse.[/quote]
That’s why we want targeted strike that won’t affect the military outcome in Syria but is a moral stance against chemical weapons.
Kerry said military regime change is not the goal. McCain want to make it an American objective.[/quote]
FIH: So, the only country in history to have used atomic weapons is taking a moral stance against chemical weapons.
Cool. Let’s see how this plays out.
Participant[quote=spdrun]^^^
Exactly. And I’m not sure whether an intervention in Syria will make things there better or worse.[/quote]
You’re not sure, huh? Color me shocked.
ParticipantFIH: So, uh, the last two years never happened? That first 90,000+ who were killed is okey doke, but we’re really pissed off at this last 1,500 because Assad used chemical weapons?
Does taking out a palace count for more on the international stage, then, say, lobbing a cruise missile at an aspirin factory?
And you believe that Obama’s planned destruction of Assad’s pied a terre is gonna make him look “presidential”? To whom? He has bungled badly here and, yes, he has painted himself into a corner and is desperately seeking help from wherever he can find it. I mean, France? Seriously?
Dude, just because you voted for him (I’m guessing twice, based on your full-throated support of his obvious ineptitude) doesn’t mean you have to suspend reality on his behalf.
Obama is being exposed for his lack of credentials and lack of experience and profound lack of understanding of the power dynamics that undergird the Middle East. Poor sap truly believed that his speech in Cairo would change a single thing there. And we have 3 and a half more years of this nonsense to look forward to.
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Allan, Correct me if I am wrong but Hillary is a private citizen at this time? Taking a highly public role would be not so great for her and could be bad for the party.
Can’t see why to call her out? She might endorse Obama publicly, but doesn’t want to look too involved.Situation is getting worse either way. The propaganda machine has been turned up to 11. The “debate” is scandalous. Anything we do, or don’t do is scandalous because that’s how history has made it. We do what we shouldn’t do or turn our backs on Allies who are used to us doing their fighting/nation building for them. Bad situation.
Putin is kicking O’s ass and there is nothing “his girl”Oprah can do about it. If it weren’t so serious it would be hilarious.
Going for popcorn now.[/quote]
Russ: Hillary is indeed a private citizen, and I wasn’t calling her out as much as I was making an observation. If the political calculus favored it, Hillary would’ve issued a statement calling for a “measured response” and done so for the good of the party, as Obama is clearly floundering here.
Anyway you cut it, he’s hosed. He opts out of the strike, he’ll be castigated roundly for being weak and Assad and Putin and Iran will turn this into a major propaganda victory.
He decides to strike, he runs the risk of a widening conflict, potentially one spilling out and involving Israel, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, take your pick. Syria is pretty much right in the middle of everything there.
It’s a godawful mess and our foreign policy is an absolute shambles right now.
Maybe he can give another speech in Cairo. Oh, wait…
ParticipantFIH: So, this administration has dithered for two years, nearly 100,000 people are dead, there is no workable plan in place for effective strikes and Obama, realizing that he’s painted himself into a corner, is now attempting to proactively blame shift by involving Congress is crafting a master stroke?
That’s your honest read of the situation? You think Assad gives a rat’s ass if we take out a palace? Really? This dude is all about holding onto power. Period. There is no viable endgame for Assad, other than death or victory.
You notice who is remarkably quiet on all this? Hillary Clinton. Wonder why that is? I thought Dubya’s foreign policy in the Middle East was too heavy handed, but he knew how to sound a message. This administration is starting to make Carter look actually competent. The US is a joke now.
September 2, 2013 at 9:53 PM in reply to: OT: On the killing floor; immigrations impacts on wages #765048ParticipantCAR: I’d point out that Richard Trumka, head of the AFL-CIO, makes approx $275k per year, or 8x the wage of the average union employee.
The problem is that it’s no longer Labor versus Capital anymore. It’s a rigged game. Way back when you could count on there being an actual difference between Republicans and Democrats. The GOP was the party of the moneyed elite and the Dems fought for the rights of pretty much everyone else and was strongly supported by Big Labor as a result.
Now, it’s all about the money and the money buys access and the GOP and the Dems are indistinguishable from one another, and that has now impacted our lives from civil liberties to a working wage. In a certain light, Obama doesn’t look all that different from Nixon, or Dubya and Clinton wasn’t different from Reagan (the joke being that Clinton was an excellent Republican president).
The whole rotting edifice stinks and nothing will change without sweeping and substantive reform. Think that’s happening anytime soon?
Participant[quote=SD Realtor]Yeah… here we go again just blundering right along. This could have far worse ramifications then what happened in Libya. This is a bad move.[/quote]
SDR: Whaaat? Whaddaya mean?
No plan.
No exit strategy.
No allies (save France, and does France ever really count in an actual shooting war?)
No clear cut objectives.
Involving ourselves in a sectarian civil war being used as a proxy conflict by Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia.
What could possibly go wrong?
-
AuthorPosts
