On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 6:23:43?AM UTC-7, [email protected] wrote:
There is a large overlap of Trump supporters and conspiracy
theorists. Don't get me started.
Oh, certainly. If I hadn't been aware of that before, I certainly
would have learned it from the news coverage of the violent
acts of January 6, 2021.
But while I gave a positive rating to the "context" that appeared
on the page you linked, it seemed to me that a fact check such
as that from AFP, aimed presumably at the _general public_,
was kind of unnecessary, since for most people, this claim was
just too ridiculous for words.
On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 10:26:00 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:
Google News, these days, includes some fact checks by news agencies
at the bottom of the page.
Agence France Presse thought it necessary, to help prevent the public
from being misled, to fact-check a claim that Republican candidate for
the Republican Presidential nomination, Nikki Haley...
Used the U.S. military system known as HAARP to create stormy weather
for the Iowa caucus to favor her candidacy.
HAARP is a system for studying the radio propagation properties of the
upper atmosphere. Only some out-to-lunch New Age conspiracy nuts
think it's a death ray that can change the weather. Fact checking that
kind of claim is like fact checking a claim that Nikki Haley was recieving >> help from space aliens.
Link, please?
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 6:40:39 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
Oh, I can believe that. God likely sent him to punish them.
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
--scott
I'll add that craziness can go both ways. There's a sub Reddit
called Trump666, which maintains that he's the Biblical
Antichrist. It has nearly 3000 members.
HAARP is a system for studying the radio propagation properties of the
upper atmosphere. Only some out-to-lunch New Age conspiracy nuts
think it's a death ray that can change the weather. Fact checking that
kind of claim is like fact checking a claim that Nikki Haley was recieving >help from space aliens.
Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
HAARP is a system for studying the radio propagation properties of the
upper atmosphere. Only some out-to-lunch New Age conspiracy nuts
think it's a death ray that can change the weather. Fact checking that
kind of claim is like fact checking a claim that Nikki Haley was recieving >> help from space aliens.
Why not? According to the Weekly World News, presidents have been receiving help from space aliens since Kennedy at least.
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
Oh, I can believe that. God likely sent him to punish them.
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 12:04:01?PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 03:46:01 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 10:26:00 UTC, Quadibloc wrote:About a decade ago, /Christianity Today/ had an article on a group of
Google News, these days, includes some fact checks by news agencies
at the bottom of the page.
Agence France Presse thought it necessary, to help prevent the public
from being misled, to fact-check a claim that Republican candidate for >> >> the Republican Presidential nomination, Nikki Haley...
Used the U.S. military system known as HAARP to create stormy weather
for the Iowa caucus to favor her candidacy.
HAARP is a system for studying the radio propagation properties of the >> >> upper atmosphere. Only some out-to-lunch New Age conspiracy nuts
think it's a death ray that can change the weather. Fact checking that >> >> kind of claim is like fact checking a claim that Nikki Haley was recieving
help from space aliens.
Link, please?
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
unchurched Christians who had apparently left organized religion
decades earlier and had passed on their religion to their children
themselves.
The author was very concerned. But not about why these people's
ancestors had left whatever group they left, oh no. The author was
concerned because, /not attending an Evangelical church/, they might
inadvertently vote for a Democrat, having missed the proper
indoctrination by the minister.
The rot goes deep and is decades old. Rooting it out will be quite
difficult -- but at least it will be relatively peaceful, if a bit
raucous, as the more vigorous means employed in the past are not legal
and/or violate the Constitution.
I just read a paper which claimed that the US populations most susceptible >to conspiracy theories were Christian Nationalists and biblical literalist Christians.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jssr.12836
I can't speak to the quality of the source, but suspect its low.
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
I'd be profoundly uncomfortable hearing that sort of thing
from the pulpit, even regarding a candidate that I liked.
"Walk out brushing the dust off my feet as I go" uncomfortable.
This election, it's purely a question of which evil is the
lesser evil, or the less dangerous evil regardless of how
objectively evil the evil is.
When I lived in California, the outcome of the election was so
completely a foregone conclusion that I could comfortably cast
a "A Plague on Both Your Parties" vote. (Either Libertarian,
or write in Cthulhu if the Lib was more of a nutcase than
usual.) Now, in a state that's slightly more in play (though
not much) I think I'll have to make an actual choice between
the two.
Among my considerations: A weakling president invites agressors
to agress. A crazy president (as long as not too crazy)
causes agressors to pause and wonder "Uh... just how crazy
is he, anyway?" which, perhaps, promotes a more stable
world situation.
In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
I'd be profoundly uncomfortable hearing that sort of thing
from the pulpit, even regarding a candidate that I liked.
"Walk out brushing the dust off my feet as I go" uncomfortable.
This election, it's purely a question of which evil is the
lesser evil, or the less dangerous evil regardless of how
objectively evil the evil is.
When I lived in California, the outcome of the election was so
completely a foregone conclusion that I could comfortably cast
a "A Plague on Both Your Parties" vote. (Either Libertarian,
or write in Cthulhu if the Lib was more of a nutcase than
usual.) Now, in a state that's slightly more in play (though
not much) I think I'll have to make an actual choice between
the two.
Among my considerations: A weakling president invites agressors
to agress. A crazy president (as long as not too crazy)
causes agressors to pause and wonder "Uh... just how crazy
is he, anyway?" which, perhaps, promotes a more stable
world situation.
(Favorite meme from a few elections back: Grumpy Cat, with--
the caption "OK, the joke isn't funny any more. Bring out
the real candidates.")
On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 04:06:07 UTC, Kevrob wrote:
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 10:45:54?PM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote: >> > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 00:05:57 UTC, [email protected] wrote:
I think that's only if the Prez is giving the Pope a ride.On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 6:40:39?PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote: >> > > > Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:Does it include the argument that since the
I'll add that craziness can go both ways. There's a sub RedditOh, I can believe that. God likely sent him to punish them.
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
--scott
called Trump666, which maintains that he's the Biblical
Antichrist. It has nearly 3000 members.
Presidential car is known as "The Beast",
he or she that rides it is the Lady from Babylon?
(so to speak)
Well - I think "Babylon" in Revelations is code
for Rome, but as a commercial power - it doesn't
mean Roman Catholicism.
On the other hand, the "Authorised Version" bible
is a work of translation into English by Protestants,
commissioned by King James. It may have been
about the Pope for them.
References say that the name of "The Beast"--
has been applied since George W. Bush's car.
ObSF: _Transmetropolitan_ by Warren Ellis et al.,
published 1997-2002, features "The Beast" as
White incumbent president of a future United States
like in Judge Dredd, except "Judges" run Judge Dredd's
City. "The Beast" is a nickname so successfully given
by the series antihero Spider Jerusalem that
The Beast's actual name is hardly remembered.
There are religious references in the story overall,
but Mr, er, Jerusalem describes The Beast as
"a big black animal squatting in the heart of America"
which is rather unfortunate language. The Moriarty
of politics perhaps. As I say, The Beast there is
a White man, but he wears dark suits.
The Smiler is another significant political character
in the story, with echoes of Tony Blair and
Princess Diana.
On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 4:32:57?PM UTC-5, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearingI'd be profoundly uncomfortable hearing that sort of thing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
from the pulpit, even regarding a candidate that I liked.
"Walk out brushing the dust off my feet as I go" uncomfortable.
This election, it's purely a question of which evil is the
lesser evil, or the less dangerous evil regardless of how
objectively evil the evil is.
When I lived in California, the outcome of the election was so
completely a foregone conclusion that I could comfortably cast
a "A Plague on Both Your Parties" vote. (Either Libertarian,
or write in Cthulhu if the Lib was more of a nutcase than
usual.) Now, in a state that's slightly more in play (though
not much) I think I'll have to make an actual choice between
the two.
Among my considerations: A weakling president invites agressors
to agress. A crazy president (as long as not too crazy)
causes agressors to pause and wonder "Uh... just how crazy
is he, anyway?" which, perhaps, promotes a more stable
world situation.
But who's the weakling? I'm no fan of either man, but Trump kowtows
to a dictator over his own intelligence community, wants to withdraw
from the defense alliance that has kept the peace for nearly 80 years,
and wants to cut off aid to Ukraine, which quite aside from having
a right to exist, has greatly weakened one of our major opponents on the >world stage. He's also facing multiple indictments, is in denial of the fact >that he lost the election
Trump has made it clear that he intends to replace government officials
from top to bottom with people loyal to him, and not to the constitution. >That's straight out of the Dictator's Playbook.
He's spoken several times of wanting to emulate the dictators-for-life
he admires in Russia, China, and NK.
I'm no fan of Biden, but the idea of Trump getting back in power scares
the bejesus out of me.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:58:28 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday, January 17, 2024 at 4:32:57?PM UTC-5, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearingI'd be profoundly uncomfortable hearing that sort of thing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
from the pulpit, even regarding a candidate that I liked.
"Walk out brushing the dust off my feet as I go" uncomfortable.
This election, it's purely a question of which evil is the
lesser evil, or the less dangerous evil regardless of how
objectively evil the evil is.
When I lived in California, the outcome of the election was so
completely a foregone conclusion that I could comfortably cast
a "A Plague on Both Your Parties" vote. (Either Libertarian,
or write in Cthulhu if the Lib was more of a nutcase than
usual.) Now, in a state that's slightly more in play (though
not much) I think I'll have to make an actual choice between
the two.
Among my considerations: A weakling president invites agressors
to agress. A crazy president (as long as not too crazy)
causes agressors to pause and wonder "Uh... just how crazy
is he, anyway?" which, perhaps, promotes a more stable
world situation.
But who's the weakling? I'm no fan of either man, but Trump kowtows
to a dictator over his own intelligence community, wants to withdraw
from the defense alliance that has kept the peace for nearly 80 years,
and wants to cut off aid to Ukraine, which quite aside from having
a right to exist, has greatly weakened one of our major opponents on the
world stage. He's also facing multiple indictments, is in denial of the fact >> that he lost the election
He appears to be currently justifying the money he received from
various foreign countries as payment for services rendered.
The idea that the President of the United States should /not/ be a
paid agent of a foreign power has apparently never even occurred to
him.
Trump has made it clear that he intends to replace government officials >>from top to bottom with people loyal to him, and not to the constitution.
That's straight out of the Dictator's Playbook.
That is only possible up to a point. And those officials will be
taking an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump. And many will need
Senate confirmation and/or are impeachable/convictable.
The whole /purpose/ of Civil Service is to keep the vast bulk of
Federal employees working regardless of any political winds that may
be blowing. As one of our IRS Directors put it when he made changes
"it takes a long time to turn a ship".
On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 17:30:47 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
The whole /purpose/ of Civil Service is to keep the vast bulk of
Federal employees working regardless of any political winds that may
be blowing. As one of our IRS Directors put it when he made changes
"it takes a long time to turn a ship".
I gather that the U.S. has less of un-political
public service than is good. Civil servants,
police, and judges are either elected by
party affiliation, or dismissed by a new
president who appoints somebody of their
own party. And again, if that somebody
fails to five pleasure to the president.
And if oaths are sworn then fingers
are crossed.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:58:28 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
Trump, OTOH, was
clearly a threat to the country. And still is. IMHO, of course.
Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as
well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?
On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 12:14:35?PM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 21:32:53 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,Articles I've read suggest a lot of Evangelicals -- particularly older
Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
I'd be profoundly uncomfortable hearing that sort of thing
from the pulpit, even regarding a candidate that I liked.
"Walk out brushing the dust off my feet as I go" uncomfortable.
ones -- are doing pretty much that. To the point that, for a while at
least, there were more people in mainline churches on Sunday mornings
than in Evangelical ones -- for the first time in decades.
Complaints cited included: don't hear the Gospel preached, tired of
being told what to do, "Christian Nationalists" are clearly not
Christian and are overunning the church.
This election, it's purely a question of which evil is theThat kind of depends on who runs.
lesser evil, or the less dangerous evil regardless of how
objectively evil the evil is.
My take: whichever Party nominates a post-Baby-Boom candidate will
win. Hands down. No matter which old fogey is being run against.
So who?
GOP
DeSantis born 1978. (seems to be a smarter, meaner version of Trump)
Haley born 1972 (probably the most acceptable GOP candidate, at least for me).
Dems
Dean Phillips born 1969 (I'm close enough to NH that I get his ads. Seems decent. Won't get it
unless Biden has a stroke or dies)
Marianne Williamson born 1952 (boomer, and a religious fruitcake).
On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 17:30:47 UTC, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 13:58:28 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
Trump has made it clear that he intends to replace government officialsThat is only possible up to a point. And those officials will be
from top to bottom with people loyal to him, and not to the constitution. >> >That's straight out of the Dictator's Playbook.
taking an oath to the Constitution, not to Trump. And many will need
Senate confirmation and/or are impeachable/convictable.
The whole /purpose/ of Civil Service is to keep the vast bulk of
Federal employees working regardless of any political winds that may
be blowing. As one of our IRS Directors put it when he made changes
"it takes a long time to turn a ship".
I gather that the U.S. has less of un-political
public service than is good. Civil servants,
police, and judges are either elected by
party affiliation, or dismissed by a new
president who appoints somebody of their
own party. And again, if that somebody
fails to five pleasure to the president.
And if oaths are sworn then fingers
are crossed.
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:06:42 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (James
Nicoll) wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as >>>well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?
As I recall, Carter wasn't particularly well known and Obama was
obscure before a Star Trek related opportunity put him on the path
to the White House.
Name Recognition can also hurt, as the Dems found out when they ran a
guy named "McCarthy" in 1972.
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as
well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?
As I recall, Carter wasn't particularly well known and Obama was
obscure before a Star Trek related opportunity put him on the path
to the White House.
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 17:06:42 -0000 (UTC), [email protected] (James
Nicoll) wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
Note that these people /all/ have Name Recognition. Haley has some as >>>>well. But Phillips? Williamson? whose heard of them?
As I recall, Carter wasn't particularly well known and Obama was
obscure before a Star Trek related opportunity put him on the path
to the White House.
Name Recognition can also hurt, as the Dems found out when they ran a
guy named "McCarthy" in 1972.
Up here in Canada, Joe Clark was so well known when he became leader
of the Progressive Conservatives that his nickname was "Joe Who".
Searching for Joe Who got a hit on his wikipedia page.
On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 4:32:14?PM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
I gather that the U.S. has less of un-political
public service than is good. Civil servants,
police, and judges are either elected by
party affiliation, or dismissed by a new
president who appoints somebody of their
own party.
And, most especially, this becomes fatally serious when
these political public servants are the ones conducting
elections!
Blatant gerrymandering, tactics to discourage as many
black people from voting as possible, and so on.
On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 1:31:48?PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
They don't like or agree with that and want sycophants serving who will
dismantle much of the Federal government because it is too big and
complicated for them to understand.
Although that nicely impugns their intelligence, that is _not_ their reason >for dismantling a lot of the Federal Government.
It's because their campaign donors are largely made up of people who
wish to stop the Federal Government from interfering in their making
as much money as possible. No consumer safety regulations. No
restrictions on pollution. No antitrust laws. And so on and so forth.
Let's turn the country's National Parks into coal mines!
Repealing the Thirteenth Amendment would be a plus. If black people
were returned to slavery, then ordinary white working-class people, who
would no longer have anything in the way of rights against the companies
of which they are customers and employees would think they were still
free.
The free enterprise system is a wonderful thing when it works properly,--
but there are some rich businessmen who are greedy, and who want to
make more money than they could under a democratic government that
enforces fair competition. Crony capitalism - as existed in Russia before >Putin decided to dispense with his cronies when they realized the invasion
of Ukraine was bad for business - is their future for America.
John Savard
On Sunday, January 21, 2024 at 11:17:11 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 10:07:56 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Thursday, January 18, 2024 at 1:31:48?PM UTC-7, Dimensional Traveler wrote:The Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery (except as the punishment for
They don't like or agree with that and want sycophants serving who will >>>> dismantle much of the Federal government because it is too big and
complicated for them to understand.
Although that nicely impugns their intelligence, that is _not_ their reason >>> for dismantling a lot of the Federal Government.
It's because their campaign donors are largely made up of people who
wish to stop the Federal Government from interfering in their making
as much money as possible. No consumer safety regulations. No
restrictions on pollution. No antitrust laws. And so on and so forth.
Let's turn the country's National Parks into coal mines!
Repealing the Thirteenth Amendment would be a plus. If black people
were returned to slavery, then ordinary white working-class people, who
would no longer have anything in the way of rights against the companies >>> of which they are customers and employees would think they were still
free.
convicted criminals). It has no racial qualifications.
So who says only African-Americans would be enslaved if it were
removed?
Some may hope to emulate, knowingly or not, the situation in
northern Mali, where in some Tuareg controlled areas, the descendants
of slaves have been re-enslaved, under the ownership of the
same families which owned their ancestors.
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 03:46:01 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a Christian is supposed to be.
I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
About a decade ago, /Christianity Today/ had an article on a group of >unchurched Christians who had apparently left organized religion
decades earlier and had passed on their religion to their children >themselves.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 10:19:43 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie ><[email protected]> wrote:
On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 04:06:07 UTC, Kevrob wrote:
On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 10:45:54?PM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote: >>> > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 00:05:57 UTC, [email protected] wrote: >>> > > On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 6:40:39?PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote: >>> > > > Robert Carnegie <[email protected]> wrote:Well - I think "Babylon" in Revelations is code
for Rome, but as a commercial power - it doesn't
mean Roman Catholicism.
On the other hand, the "Authorised Version" bible
is a work of translation into English by Protestants,
commissioned by King James. It may have been
about the Pope for them.
References say that the name of "The Beast"
has been applied since George W. Bush's car.
As I say, The Beast there is
a White man, but he wears dark suits.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 03:46:01 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie ><[email protected]> wrote:
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a >Christian is supposed to be.
I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a >Christian is supposed to be.
I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
They got a reversal of Roe vs. Wade. At least one SCOTUS justice is
talking of reversing on gay marriage and LGBT+ rights.
We live in 'interesting times'.
[Trump is] also facing multiple indictments
However, I doubt that is really true. Because then Kamala Harris would be >able to defeat Donald Trump. And I don't think I could hope for that in my >wildest dreams.
Because she has two colossal strikes against her. She is not white. And she >is not male.
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 9:36:23?AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
Well, there you are. Jimmy Carter failed them, so now they're trying >something completely different. If only Donald Trump could have
been a comedian on Monty Python's Flying Circus instead of a
politician.
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:36:23?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:52:33 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 03:46:01 -0800 (PST), Robert CarnegieIronically, Luther would have agreed with their approach: as he said
<[email protected]> wrote:
Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
they're hearing that from their church preachers.
Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a
Christian is supposed to be.
when discussing rulers, "better a Turk who is a good leader than a
Christian who is not".
But, of course, since Trump wasn't a good leader (or any kind of
leader in the sense demanded of Presidents of the United States of
America), that would not apply to Trump.
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
responses to you post have noted.
I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.
I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
They got a reversal of Roe vs. Wade. At least one SCOTUS justice is
talking of reversing on gay marriage and LGBT+ rights.
We live in 'interesting times'.
The Horny Goat <[email protected]> wrote:
Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a >>Christian is supposed to be.
I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
If you look carefully you will notice that an awful lot of "evangelicals" >don't seem actually to be very Christian at all even if they use the normal >signs and symbols of Christianity.
Many who are basically say that because Trump put "conservatives" on
the Supreme Court to eliminate Roe vs. Wade that they are on his side because >this is more important to them than anything else in the world. I find this >very strange, seeing that until fairly recently the anti-abortion movement was >a Catholic thing and evangelicals specifically avoided the issue in order to >distinguish themselves from those evil Catholics.
In 1976, the Southern Baptist convention passed a declaration in favor of >the right to abortion. But then a few years later Pat Robertson discovered >he could get money by being anti-abortion and Ronald Reagan discovered he >could get votes by supporting Pat Robertson and then everything changed.
On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 7:23:11?PM UTC-5, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
[Trump is] also facing multiple indictments
Show me one (1) indictment that passes muster with a well known
lawyer, proudly liberal (one of the last honest ones), who supported
Hillary and Biden. Alan Dershowitz. He has excoriated the whole
"legal" campaign against Trump.
Dershowitz has some pretty out-there opinions, for example proposing
the use of torture for interrogating terrorists.
I think Trump's mishandling of classified documents is a pretty open and
shut case, but unfortunately is currently in the hands of a clearly biased judge.
I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s >(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
[Hal Heydt]
Interactial marriage, access to contraceptives, and--while not
generalized having had laws against it--inter-religious marriage.
Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"= >to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic= >Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I= >similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20 >big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there
ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and federalism. >US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues when >it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits them.
On 1/26/2024 12:31 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
[Hal Heydt]
Interactial marriage, access to contraceptives, and--while not
generalized having had laws against it--inter-religious marriage.
Basically anything "against the word of God" (according to your local >preacher). ;)
Kevrob <[email protected]> wrote:
Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"= >>to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic= >>Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I= >>similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20 >>big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and
be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance, >not pro-life.
I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place >for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.
The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there >>ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and federalism.
US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues when >>it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits them.
My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children >until they reached the age of 18.
Dimensional Traveler <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/26/2024 12:31 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
[Hal Heydt]
Interactial marriage, access to contraceptives, and--while not
generalized having had laws against it--inter-religious marriage.
Basically anything "against the word of God" (according to your local >>preacher). ;)
But yet they let the beard-shavers and mixed-fabric-clothing wearers
walk right around in public. Disgusting.
That's because the whole "against the word of God" approach is part of
a bigger problem, where only /some/ parts are considered valid, while
others can be freely ignored.
This is a step on the road from "I do what God says" to "God does what
I say".
On 27 Jan 2024 00:49:42 -0000, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Kevrob <[email protected]> wrote:
Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"= >>to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic= >>Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I= >>similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20 >>big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and
be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance, >not pro-life.
I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place >for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.
The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there >>ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and >>federalism.
US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues >>when
it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits >>them.
My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children >until they reached the age of 18.
That's actually /very/ traditional. The Romans living in classical
times would have agreed with him.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
That's because the whole "against the word of God" approach is part of
a bigger problem, where only /some/ parts are considered valid, while
others can be freely ignored.
This is a step on the road from "I do what God says" to "God does what
I say".
Many people wish to serve God, but only in an advisory capacity.
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:58:17?PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 27 Jan 2024 00:49:42 -0000, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:I am under the impression that 18 wasn't the upper age limit for Roman
Kevrob <[email protected]> wrote:
Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"=
to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic=
Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I=
similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20
big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and >> > >be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance,
not pro-life.
I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place
for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.
The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there >> > >>ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and
federalism.
US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues >> > >>when
it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits >> > >>them.
My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children
until they reached the age of 18.
That's actually /very/ traditional. The Romans living in classical
times would have agreed with him.
fathers.
Catalina was accused of the murder of his son. It never went to court,
as that wouldn't have been useful to the accusers, but nobody seems to
have said he had a right to do so.
In a technical sense all Romans were their fathers' slaves - there was even
a special ceremony by which a father could manumit his children.
On Sunday, January 28, 2024 at 11:05:11?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 13:03:06 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, January 27, 2024 at 12:58:17?PM UTC-5, Robert Woodward wrote: >> >> In article <[email protected]>,Keep in mind that Ancient Rome lasted ... a long, long time.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 27 Jan 2024 00:49:42 -0000, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >> >> >I am under the impression that 18 wasn't the upper age limit for Roman >> >> fathers.
Kevrob <[email protected]> wrote:
Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"=
to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic=
Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I=
similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20
big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and
be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance,
not pro-life.
I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place
for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.
The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there
ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and >> >> > >>federalism.
US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues
when
it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits
them.
My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children
until they reached the age of 18.
That's actually /very/ traditional. The Romans living in classical
times would have agreed with him.
Catalina was accused of the murder of his son. It never went to court,
as that wouldn't have been useful to the accusers, but nobody seems to
have said he had a right to do so.
In a technical sense all Romans were their fathers' slaves - there was even
a special ceremony by which a father could manumit his children.
The adjective "liber" ("free") was also used as a masculine noun for
"boy" -- because boys would eventually be free. Girls, of course,
never were, in accordance with the Most Basic Rule of Traditional
Family Values:
women are cattle
but the boys eventually were, indeed, freed. At one point, IIRC, "put
on the manly toga" was the phrase used to mark the point of freedom.
This was a coming of age ceremony and did not free them from their father's >"Patira Potestas". Or their paternal grandfather's, if he was alive.
As you implied, the power varied in time and was strongest in the early >republic. It waned over the centuries and Augustus weakened it
further. Apparently (news to me) it still existed in the time of
Justinian though I've no idea whether it had any actual practical >significance by then.
A man could vote, run for office, command legions, while still formally not free from his father.
In theory none of the money he earned was his own, but in practice that was abandoned
(if it was ever enforced) fairly soon after the founding of the republic.
The power extended to wives, adopted children and all descendants in the male >line.
Aside from the father freeing a son (who would then become a paterfamilias in the
legal sense, even if he was without children) escape from a father's power came
if either father or son was exiled, the father declared insane, by the son becoming
a priest of Mars or the daughter becoming a vestal.
But the restrictions on the life of a priest of Mars, at least in the highest rank, were
far worse than the burden of a father's power. And girls didn't have much choice
about becoming Vestals.
But we may be talking about slightly different customs at slighly
different periods in Rome's history.
Certainly (well, per, IIRC, Durant) in the 3rd century AD those pesky
Christians had enough votes in the Senate to pass a law that,
In the fourth century, possibly. Though the senate would not pass any
law that the Emperor didn't approve of first. And as Constantine
murdered his eldest son, it probably wasn't passed until he went
to his eternal punishment.
henceforth, a Roman pater familias had to have a /reason to do so/
before he could kill one of his children.
I can't recall any example of this power being used to kill an adult child >after the early republic. Refusing to accept newborns, on the other hand, >was a custom that lasted much longer and I've no idea when it was
abandoned.
Many who are basically say that because Trump put "conservatives" on
the Supreme Court to eliminate Roe vs. Wade that they are on his side because >this is more important to them than anything else in the world. I find this >very strange, seeing that until fairly recently the anti-abortion movement was >a Catholic thing and evangelicals specifically avoided the issue in order to >distinguish themselves from those evil Catholics.
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
responses to you post have noted.
I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.=20
I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s >(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
About either of those, I care nothing. I'll be voting for
Nikki Haley in the primary and (hopefully) in November,
and there is no white person on this planet that I'd even
consider for a moment voting for if he were running against
Thomas Sowell.
On 24 Jan 2024 21:28:03 -0000, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Many who are basically say that because Trump put "conservatives" on
the Supreme Court to eliminate Roe vs. Wade that they are on his side because >>this is more important to them than anything else in the world. I find this >>very strange, seeing that until fairly recently the anti-abortion movement was
a Catholic thing and evangelicals specifically avoided the issue in order to >>distinguish themselves from those evil Catholics.
Evangelicals have historically been every bit as 'solid' on abortion
as have Catholics but tend not to talk about it much.
Someone like Clarence Thomas got nominated as he was a black jurist
who could be counted on to vote the way the president wanted. The fact
that Dubya appointed him is no more shocking than if a Democrat
president had nominated a left leaning jurist for the SCOTUS.
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
responses to you post have noted.
Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
a Christian is supposed to be.
I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
The line above on woke vs anti-woke makes sense but wasn't my point.
MLK is also documented as a man who had trouble keeping his zipper
under control.
Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.=20
I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s >>(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
Farbeit that antebellum Southrons are considered 19th century examples
of what people of faith were supposed to be like.
As for LGBT etc a LOT of straight people dislike the term since many
of the wokesters will go ballistic if one includes or excludes the
right letters. For that one is damned forever in these folks' eyes. I
know one guy (he and I are both regulars at our city council) who is
in a 30+ year gay relationship and he knows I'm not interested in it
so mostly we ignore it except the few times he slips - which I
occasionally do when mentioning my children to make a political point.
(Most recently about the skyrocketing cost of housing - there was a
case locally here recently where a husband and wife pair of MDs got
turned down for a mortgage due to income that hit the news to the
effect that 'if THEY can't get a mortgage who can?!?")
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person >><[email protected]d> wrote:
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
responses to you post have noted.
The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.=20
I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s >>>(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and >>>female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce, >>>cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
Farbeit that antebellum Southrons are considered 19th century examples
of what people of faith were supposed to be like.
/They/ certainly thought that they were.
In these discussions, I find the phrase "whitewashed tomb" keeps
occurring to me.
As for LGBT etc a LOT of straight people dislike the term since many
of the wokesters will go ballistic if one includes or excludes the
right letters. For that one is damned forever in these folks' eyes. I
know one guy (he and I are both regulars at our city council) who is
in a 30+ year gay relationship and he knows I'm not interested in it
so mostly we ignore it except the few times he slips - which I
occasionally do when mentioning my children to make a political point.
I don't dislike it, but including the largest set of symbols I have
seen (as I did above) might be seen as a form of satire.
Not of the people, of course, just the ever-growing acronym. Although
I suppose the "+" at the end is supposed to keep any more letters from
being added.
(Most recently about the skyrocketing cost of housing - there was a
case locally here recently where a husband and wife pair of MDs got
turned down for a mortgage due to income that hit the news to the
effect that 'if THEY can't get a mortgage who can?!?")
What goes up must come down. And nothing reduces property values like
a wide-spread inability to buy.
I had an uncle who convinced one of my brothers that land values could
never go down because "people always need someplace to live". During a
family reunion in (IIRC) 1982, we saw a news broadcast where a man was >interviewed whose house had just dropped by $1M; he was, of course, in >California. My brother was appalled, but I pointed out that we didn't
know how much the house was worth: if it had been worth $2M, this was
indeed a disaster; but if if had be worth $10M, then it was an
inconvenience. My brother and uncle were not amused.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:22:07 -0800, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person >>><[email protected]d> wrote:
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the >>>>traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other >>>>responses to you post have noted.
Most evangelicals would agree a certain standard of behaviour is
expected of "God's people" though there might well be differences
between various groups. I can't imagine too many of them approve of
Trump's marital history or Trump's idea of sexual morality.
The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
Which the government is constitutionally barred from intervening in -
for instance if a Hindu claims to be a Buddhist (for instance) that's
none of the government's business.
Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.=20
I happen to agree with yoiu though that's not a question of 'freedom
of religion'
I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s >>>>(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and >>>>female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce, >>>>cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator) >>>>in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
Farbeit that antebellum Southrons are considered 19th century examples
of what people of faith were supposed to be like.
/They/ certainly thought that they were.
Agreed - though I'd argue that pretty much through the 20th century
(and certainly today) most American Christians (including the Southern >Baptist Convention) would disagree. Note that given the various papal >encyclicals have also drifted in matters of morality - it's not just >Protestants.
In these discussions, I find the phrase "whitewashed tomb" keeps
occurring to me.
\Yup! Well said!
As for LGBT etc a LOT of straight people dislike the term since many
of the wokesters will go ballistic if one includes or excludes the
right letters. For that one is damned forever in these folks' eyes. I >>>know one guy (he and I are both regulars at our city council) who is
in a 30+ year gay relationship and he knows I'm not interested in it
so mostly we ignore it except the few times he slips - which I >>>occasionally do when mentioning my children to make a political point.
I previously neglected to mention that for me at least most of those >references were with respect to the school board. (As you might expect
in discussions involving children)
I don't dislike it, but including the largest set of symbols I have
seen (as I did above) might be seen as a form of satire.
I've seen that done too which REALLY sets the wokesters off!
Not of the people, of course, just the ever-growing acronym. Although
I suppose the "+" at the end is supposed to keep any more letters from >>being added.
At least in these parts those folks have even changed the rainbow flag
to include other groups (usually with a sideways V) And God help the
well meaning person who gets the version wrong!
(Most recently about the skyrocketing cost of housing - there was a
case locally here recently where a husband and wife pair of MDs got >>>turned down for a mortgage due to income that hit the news to the
effect that 'if THEY can't get a mortgage who can?!?")
What goes up must come down. And nothing reduces property values like
a wide-spread inability to buy.
True but where housing is used for money-laundering by off shore drug
dealers what you suggest may not happen. And in the meantime the
30-something generation (which historically has been when most
homeowners have purchased their first homes) are locked out of the
market when they should be getting into it. I have said to our mayor
(direct quote) "I am disturbed when I know that my children's road to
home ownership lies in my demise!" He nearly choked on the spot but
clearly understood what I meant.
I had an uncle who convinced one of my brothers that land values could >>never go down because "people always need someplace to live". During a >>family reunion in (IIRC) 1982, we saw a news broadcast where a man was >>interviewed whose house had just dropped by $1M; he was, of course, in >>California. My brother was appalled, but I pointed out that we didn't
know how much the house was worth: if it had been worth $2M, this was >>indeed a disaster; but if if had be worth $10M, then it was an >>inconvenience. My brother and uncle were not amused.
Heh, heh. Housing prices in Vancouver BC are lower than California
though given the US$ vs Canadian $ (currently CDN $1.00 = roughly US$
.74 - .75) so the dollar amounts are about equal.
Our house's assessed value actually /dropped/ for this year. In fact,
the value for 2024 Property Taxes is lower not only than that for
2023, but 2022 as well. Affordable housing is becoming a major issue
in Seattle: those baristas, clerks, checkers/baggers, etc have to have >/somewhere/ to live, and the 'burbs are too long a commute away.
Of course, assessed value is /not/ appraised value, nor is it what the
house is worth on the market. And property taxes don't go up and down
with value, at least not directly. But still, assessed value does tend
to follow the market.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 08:54:52 -0800, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
Our house's assessed value actually /dropped/ for this year. In fact,
the value for 2024 Property Taxes is lower not only than that for
2023, but 2022 as well. Affordable housing is becoming a major issue
in Seattle: those baristas, clerks, checkers/baggers, etc have to have >>/somewhere/ to live, and the 'burbs are too long a commute away.
Wish I were in your situation - between the increase in property
assessed value and the tax increase we're looking at at the municipal
level I'm looking at a tax increase in double digits - which is one
helluva thing to have to deal with in your second year of retirement.
Of course, assessed value is /not/ appraised value, nor is it what the >>house is worth on the market. And property taxes don't go up and down
with value, at least not directly. But still, assessed value does tend
to follow the market.
In BC (Canada) we have a provincial assessment agency that does their >assessments based on what they think properties were worth as of July
1 the previous year. Trouble is they've fudged on that - and I know of
one commercial property that sold in October (two years ago) for $1
million over assessment which caused the assessors to raise everyone's >assessment by 20-30% based on a sale that took place 3 months after
the date on which properties were SUPPOSED to be assessed. (Frankly
the purchaser hadn't done his homework and paid too much thinking he'd
be able to build an underground parkade in an area where the water
table was 10-15' below ground level.....oops! But the result was that
every commercial property within 1/2 mile of him had massive tax
increases thanks to his idiocy)
Of course, in Seattle, the move to local hubs based around rapid
transit stations is raising the appraisals of property in/near those
hubs compared with property further away. Which means higher taxes for
those where multi-story apartment buildings can now (thanks to the
zoning changes) replace separate houses than those not yet affected by
the changes.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:21:30 -0800, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
Of course, in Seattle, the move to local hubs based around rapid
transit stations is raising the appraisals of property in/near those
hubs compared with property further away. Which means higher taxes for >>those where multi-story apartment buildings can now (thanks to the
zoning changes) replace separate houses than those not yet affected by
the changes.
I'm in the unpleasant position of new legislation allowing subdivision
of single family lots in my area because I'm "on a bus route" even
though the nearest bus stop (in a fairly hilly area) is 2+ blocks in
either direction.
In short, the main time I see a bus is when it goes by at high speed. >Allegedly this is an 'amenity' though in practice it mostly means
extra care when exiting one's driveway or walking the dog.
About 20 years ago they instituted a "property tax levy" for public
transit in Vancouver and because our community's assessed rates are
higher than most we pay more though our buses run every 1/2 hour and
we get no subway. (Such is life in Vancouver's North Shore)
The main problem is though that the last time more lanes of traffic to
our part of town was built was 1961 and in that time the port traffic
(North Vancouver moves more tonnage of freight through its port than
Toronto) has mushroomed, new development has increased ferry traffic
to Vancouver Island and the "Sunshine Coast" and Whistler has grown
from 1200 people to about 30000 and a vibrant ski resort. Net result
is gridlock every rush hour and routes that used to be able to be done
in 20 minutes take 1 hour plus.
AND of course they've instituted a new "Rapid Bus" instead of a subway
which because it runs on dedicated lanes (taken from existing roads)
major arterials are now one lane in each direction and god help you if
you are stuck behind somebody turning left at an uncontrolled
intersection!
Trust me - for all you say about Seattle, Vancouver is considerably
worse traffic-wise!
On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
responses to you post have noted.
Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
a Christian is supposed to be.
The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
it looks odd to me that some people are
practising a "Christianity" which is a
religion of money. But I don't think
I can claim that it's more wrong than
all the other versions. Anyway, the
Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
money thing isn't new, though I think
I heard that the current office holder
modestly lives in a silver house that
is next door to the golden one. Or
something on these lines.
Likewise, if someone practises religion
with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
interpretation of their holy book -
apparently ignoring it or contradicting
it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
either. If their god chooses not to
write everything down, how can I object?
On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
responses to you post have noted.
Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a >>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being >>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
it looks odd to me that some people are
practising a "Christianity" which is a
religion of money. But I don't think
I can claim that it's more wrong than
all the other versions. Anyway, the
Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
money thing isn't new, though I think
I heard that the current office holder
modestly lives in a silver house that
is next door to the golden one. Or
something on these lines.
Likewise, if someone practises religion
with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
interpretation of their holy book -
apparently ignoring it or contradicting
it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
either. If their god chooses not to
write everything down, how can I object?
What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
entitled to do so.
That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
religion was invented.
On 2/15/2024 9:56 AM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:Isn't that _why_ religion was invented?
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
responses to you post have noted.
Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a >>>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following >>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being >>>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint >>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes >>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
it looks odd to me that some people are
practising a "Christianity" which is a
religion of money.� But I don't think
I can claim that it's more wrong than
all the other versions.� Anyway, the
Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
money thing isn't new, though I think
I heard that the current office holder
modestly lives in a silver house that
is next door to the golden one.� Or
something on these lines.
Likewise, if someone practises religion
with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
interpretation of their holy book -
apparently ignoring it or contradicting
it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
either.� If their god chooses not to
write everything down, how can I object?
What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
entitled to do so.
That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
religion was invented.
On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
responses to you post have noted.
Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a >>>>> guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being >>>>> a Christian is supposed to be.
The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
it looks odd to me that some people are
practising a "Christianity" which is a
religion of money. But I don't think
I can claim that it's more wrong than
all the other versions. Anyway, the
Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
money thing isn't new, though I think
I heard that the current office holder
modestly lives in a silver house that
is next door to the golden one. Or
something on these lines.
Likewise, if someone practises religion
with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
interpretation of their holy book -
apparently ignoring it or contradicting
it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
either. If their god chooses not to
write everything down, how can I object?
What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
entitled to do so.
That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
religion was invented.
On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 4:51:50?PM UTC-5, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/16/2024 11:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, CryptoengineerWho does the supposing? The Spanish Inquisition and the Albigensian
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]> >> >>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
responses to you post have noted.
Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following >> >>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
a Christian is supposed to be.
The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint >> >>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes >> >>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the
Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ...
evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian
behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
it looks odd to me that some people are
practising a "Christianity" which is a
religion of money. But I don't think
I can claim that it's more wrong than
all the other versions. Anyway, the
Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
money thing isn't new, though I think
I heard that the current office holder
modestly lives in a silver house that
is next door to the golden one. Or
something on these lines.
Likewise, if someone practises religion
with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
interpretation of their holy book -
apparently ignoring it or contradicting
it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
either. If their god chooses not to
write everything down, how can I object?
What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or
so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of
the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition.
And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
entitled to do so.
That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
religion was invented.
No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
years.
That religion has been used to justify evil does not change how
Christians are supposed to behave. It does, however, say something
about the prevalence of sin and evil. It says, IOW, something about
the state of the world.
Crusade were carried out by people who considered themselves
devout Christians, and they were motivated by concern for the souls
(though not the bodies) of those who had fallen into error. Your
second guessing them at a distance of centuries is kind of shakey.
You're drifting into 'No True Scotsman' territory.
All arguments in defense of the crimes committed by the religious, in the >name of religion, eventually become NTS arguments.
I don't think anyone here is trying to defend the crimes committed by
the religious and/or in the name of religion. How Christians are
supposed to be behave and how some of them behave are, sadly, all too
often two different things.
Indeed, the assertion appears to be that those who do so are not
behaving as Christians are supposed to behave, as that has been
understood for 2000 years.=20
And that some appear to have departed from that understanding.
There is a big difference from not behaving as you are supposed to be >behaving and developing your own version of what people are supposed
to do to justify your bad behavior.
You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and >philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones. Those
claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to >exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones. Those
claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
No question in certain parts of the world atheistic systems have
earned the status of 'religion' particularly when state sponsored. I'm
not all that worried about countries with state churches like Britain
or Sweden as opposed to Iran and Pol Pot's Cambodia.
You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones. Those
claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
No question in certain parts of the world atheistic systems have
earned the status of 'religion' particularly when state sponsored. I'm
not all that worried about countries with state churches like Britain
or Sweden as opposed to Iran and Pol Pot's Cambodia.
My belief is that islam is the worst religion and just looking at the
quality of life in the moslem world I think is enough proof that you
cannot build a modern society on its principles.
They need to be dropped in order to have some semblance of civilization
in the moslem world.
As for state churhc, and in the spirit of public education, the swedish
state and the church went separate ways on the 1:st of january 2000.
That said, the swedish church is a joke and some of its priests don't
even dare to say if they believe in virgin birth or not when interviewed
in public.
So to me its a kind of modern, progressive sub-branch of the swedish >socialist party for socialists who enjoy spiritual conversations.
But given the speed at which the members are dying I think the church
will be gone in a few generations.
Now, does christianity have a future?
I'm not so sure. There is a counter movement by Jordan Peterson & Co,
and pockets in the US seem to go that way, but long term, I don't see a >future for any religion in our more and more secularized and scientific >society.
That said, the swedish church is a joke and some of its priests don't
even dare to say if they believe in virgin birth or not when interviewed
in public.
So to me its a kind of modern, progressive sub-branch of the swedish >socialist party for socialists who enjoy spiritual conversations.
My belief is that islam is the worst religion and just looking at the
quality of life in the moslem world I think is enough proof that you
cannot build a modern society on its principles.
They need to be dropped in order to have some semblance of civilization
in the moslem world.
They are as we were -- two or three centuries ago.
But given the speed at which the members are dying I think the church
will be gone in a few generations.
I have no idea how realistic this is, but in the novel /The Girl with
the Dragon Tattoo/, it is Blomkvist's daughter who recognizes the
"phone number" as Biblical citations -- because she is a Christian.
And a young one. In Sweden.
Now, does christianity have a future?
There are a /lot/ of Christians world-wide. Christianity will be
around for a very long time.
I'm not so sure. There is a counter movement by Jordan Peterson & Co,
and pockets in the US seem to go that way, but long term, I don't see a
future for any religion in our more and more secularized and scientific
society.
Secularized science /itself/ is a religion if it performs the
functions of a religion. Religion is no more likely to wither away
than the State is.
Back when I was a subscriber to /Skeptical Inquirer/, just when they
were turning into an anti-religious fanaticism rag, the Editor (or
maybe Publisher), in his column, opined that "ethics could be based on Science".
Many people responded negatively. I, myself, sent a response
suggesting he have a astrophysicist explain what astrophysics has to
say about, say, abortiion.
The next issue, he clarified his statement: he meant that, since most skeptics were utilitarians, Science could be used to identify the
action that will promote the happiness of the greatest number. Which I
have no doubt it can, to some extent.
Utilitarianism, of course, has its problems -- those /not/ in the
greatest number are left to suck hind tit, as it were.
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
define science as a religion, snip
My belief is that islam is the worst religion and just looking at the
quality of life in the moslem world I think is enough proof that you
cannot build a modern society on its principles.
They need to be dropped in order to have some semblance of civilization
in the moslem world.
They are as we were -- two or three centuries ago.
True. I thought about that myself. It is also scary, because that makes
me wonder how much more bloodshed needs to happen and how many wars
before they reach our level.
On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
define science as a religion, snip
With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre contradiction could be a fact.
Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).
religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
There are unfortunately people who treat science as a religion.
science is only a method to get closer to fundamental answers.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
There are unfortunately people who treat science as a religion.
It is presented as such in American popular culture. Science is
just one dogmatic belief system among a myrid of others.
On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
define science as a religion, snip
With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre >contradiction could be a fact.
Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific >community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).
My belief is that islam is the worst religion and just looking at the
quality of life in the moslem world I think is enough proof that you
cannot build a modern society on its principles.
They need to be dropped in order to have some semblance of civilization
in the moslem world.
They are as we were -- two or three centuries ago.
True. I thought about that myself. It is also scary, because that makes
me wonder how much more bloodshed needs to happen and how many wars
before they reach our level.
But given the speed at which the members are dying I think the church
will be gone in a few generations.
I have no idea how realistic this is, but in the novel /The Girl with
the Dragon Tattoo/, it is Blomkvist's daughter who recognizes the
"phone number" as Biblical citations -- because she is a Christian.
And a young one. In Sweden.
None of my friends are christian and at work I've met one. So I'd say
pretty rare if you ask me.
Now, does christianity have a future?
There are a /lot/ of Christians world-wide. Christianity will be
around for a very long time.
In name yes, but as a vital force shaping peoples lives? I doubt it. I
know very few christians in europe. On paper of course they are, but
they have never visited a church and it doesn't factor into their lives
at all.
On the other hand, they could be hiding! The silicon valley episode with
the closet-christian comes to mind. ;)
I'm not so sure. There is a counter movement by Jordan Peterson & Co,
and pockets in the US seem to go that way, but long term, I don't see a
future for any religion in our more and more secularized and scientific
society.
Secularized science /itself/ is a religion if it performs the
functions of a religion. Religion is no more likely to wither away
than the State is.
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
define science as a religion, but as the best method/process we have for >increasing our knowledge of the world.
Back when I was a subscriber to /Skeptical Inquirer/, just when they
were turning into an anti-religious fanaticism rag, the Editor (or
maybe Publisher), in his column, opined that "ethics could be based on
Science".
Jesus! ;) Ethics based on science? Clearly he didn't study much
philosophy. And before you dismiss me as a cold hearted scientist (which
I am not), let it be known that I do have a degree in philosophy and I completely
disagree with the science as ethics stance.
Many people responded negatively. I, myself, sent a response
suggesting he have a astrophysicist explain what astrophysics has to
say about, say, abortiion.
Good one!
The next issue, he clarified his statement: he meant that, since most
skeptics were utilitarians, Science could be used to identify the
action that will promote the happiness of the greatest number. Which I
have no doubt it can, to some extent.
Oh dear... life is not so clear cut in the halls of philosophy. ;) >Utilitarianism has its strong points and its weak points, as do virtue, >contracts, deontologists, natural rights etc.
But I do find the different theories valuable in focusing on different >aspects of a juicy ethical dilemma! =)
Utilitarianism, of course, has its problems -- those /not/ in the
greatest number are left to suck hind tit, as it were.
That's one. And another favourite is, in my opinion, that you cannot do >accounting across people, and that there's no standard of measurement,
and don't even think about mixing in the time axis!
On 2/18/2024 8:36 PM, Titus G wrote:
On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
define science as a religion, snip
With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
contradiction could be a fact.
Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific
community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).
Gravity was invented?
On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 11:41:12?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:35:22 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 4:51:50?PM UTC-5, Cryptoengineer wrote:I don't think anyone here is trying to defend the crimes committed by
On 2/16/2024 11:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, CryptoengineerWho does the supposing? The Spanish Inquisition and the Albigensian
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other >> >> >>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following
him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
a Christian is supposed to be.
The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint
cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes
the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the >> >> >>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ... >> >> >>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian >> >> >>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
it looks odd to me that some people are
practising a "Christianity" which is a
religion of money. But I don't think
I can claim that it's more wrong than
all the other versions. Anyway, the
Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
money thing isn't new, though I think
I heard that the current office holder
modestly lives in a silver house that
is next door to the golden one. Or
something on these lines.
Likewise, if someone practises religion
with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
interpretation of their holy book -
apparently ignoring it or contradicting
it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
either. If their god chooses not to
write everything down, how can I object?
What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or >> >> >>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of >> >> >>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition. >> >> >>>
And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally
entitled to do so.
That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
religion was invented.
No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000 >> >> > years.
That religion has been used to justify evil does not change how
Christians are supposed to behave. It does, however, say something
about the prevalence of sin and evil. It says, IOW, something about
the state of the world.
Crusade were carried out by people who considered themselves
devout Christians, and they were motivated by concern for the souls
(though not the bodies) of those who had fallen into error. Your
second guessing them at a distance of centuries is kind of shakey.
You're drifting into 'No True Scotsman' territory.
All arguments in defense of the crimes committed by the religious, in the >> >name of religion, eventually become NTS arguments.
the religious and/or in the name of religion. How Christians are
supposed to be behave and how some of them behave are, sadly, all too
often two different things.
Indeed, the assertion appears to be that those who do so are not
behaving as Christians are supposed to behave, as that has been
understood for 2000 years.
And that some appear to have departed from that understanding.
There is a big difference from not behaving as you are supposed to be
behaving and developing your own version of what people are supposed
to do to justify your bad behavior.
Take for example the Albigensian crusade.
A common solder in that crusade is just following orders from his
lord. He'd do the same if the targets were fellow Catholics (as
indeed they mostly were).
His lord will mouth religious justifications for this crusade and might
even believe them. But he is mainly out for land and/or loot.
Innocent III, on the other hand, called for this crusade in the name of >Christ. The Cathars were no worldly threat to him or any of his
people. As he well knew.
You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones.
There are ideologies held by people who happen to be atheists.
But few people commit a crime on behalf of the god that does not
exist.
Dictators attack or co-opt all other power structures in their
country. And this naturally will include churches, as possible
centres of opposition. But not because the dictator does
not believe in gods. Because he does not believe in
opposition.
In one of the mildest cases on record, the Landgrave of Hesse,
a protestant, declared that in his land the Host should be made
of the toughest possible bread, so that people would be
less prone to believe in transubstantiation (source is C. V.
Wedgwood's excellent "The Thirty Years War").
Few if any of the republicans in Spain in the 1930 were Protestant,
but in areas where Catholic churches were shut down, Protestant
ones were left open. As the latter had been banned until 1911,
they were not part of the power structure that opposed the
republic. Fellow sufferers, if anything.
Those
claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
Note the implication that atheists are "members" of some
organization, as, for example, Methodists are. This is
simply not the case. I am a "member" of the set of
Atheists in the same sense that I am a member of the
set of right-handed people.
I have no loyalty to the set of right-handed people. I get no
mail asking for contribution to right-handed causes. Without
shame I use my left hand to type, pick up garbage bins, wield
a fork, and so forth. Being right-handed is not a religion.
Atheism is lack of belief in gods. That's all. It is not a religion.
No atheist speaks for me, nor do I obey any stricture offered by
other atheists on the grounds of our mutual atheism. I would be
prone to disobey, other things being equal.
Those crimes were committed by atheists (well, mostly) but not in
the name of atheism.
A lot of Muslims at least to belong to a religion of peace. Of course,
they interpret the commands to make war spiritually.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 23:08:56 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/18/2024 8:36 PM, Titus G wrote:
On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
define science as a religion, snip
With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
contradiction could be a fact.
Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with >>> an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific
community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).
Gravity was invented?
Chicken bones were invented?
Fire was invented?
Now, the Franklin Stove, /that/ was invented. But fire?
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 14:43:24 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 11:41:12?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote: >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 14:35:22 -0800 (PST), William Hyde
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 4:51:50?PM UTC-5, Cryptoengineer wrote: >>>>> On 2/16/2024 11:30 AM, Paul S Person wrote:I don't think anyone here is trying to defend the crimes committed by
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, CryptoengineerWho does the supposing? The Spanish Inquisition and the Albigensian
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 11:43 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:51:29 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 10/02/2024 16:22, Paul S Person wrote:
On Fri, 09 Feb 2024 19:55:27 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 08:36:08 -0800, Paul S Person
<[email protected]d> wrote:
Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the >>>>>>>>>>>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other >>>>>>>>>>>> responses to you post have noted.
Fair enough but I don't know any Christian of any stripe who figures a
guy who has had 3 wives and was divorced by the first two following >>>>>>>>>>> him cheated on them with the next wife is a good example of what being
a Christian is supposed to be.
The downside (if it is one) of the 1st Amendment is that the gummint >>>>>>>>>> cannot define what "Christianity" is -- freedom of religion includes >>>>>>>>>> the freedom to claim to be any religion you choose to be.
But I think it is fair to say that, historically, and despite the >>>>>>>>>> Spanish Inquisition, you are correct that the ... more rabid ... >>>>>>>>>> evangelicals do not conform to the normal definition of "Christian >>>>>>>>>> behavior". Some appear to actively repudiate it.
I'm a non-practising former Christian, and
it looks odd to me that some people are
practising a "Christianity" which is a
religion of money. But I don't think
I can claim that it's more wrong than
all the other versions. Anyway, the
Pope lives in a big golden house, so the
money thing isn't new, though I think
I heard that the current office holder
modestly lives in a silver house that
is next door to the golden one. Or
something on these lines.
Likewise, if someone practises religion
with, so to say, an extremely "inspired"
interpretation of their holy book -
apparently ignoring it or contradicting
it - I don't think I can call that wrong,
either. If their god chooses not to
write everything down, how can I object?
What I am affirming here is that, for most of the last 2000 years or >>>>>>>> so, "Christian behavior" had a pretty clear definition, and a lot of >>>>>>>> the nastier groups appear to be using a rather different definition. >>>>>>>>
And that, indeed, having freedom of religion, they are legally >>>>>>>> entitled to do so.
That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide >>>>>>> of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
religion was invented.
No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000 >>>>>> years.
That religion has been used to justify evil does not change how
Christians are supposed to behave. It does, however, say something >>>>>> about the prevalence of sin and evil. It says, IOW, something about >>>>>> the state of the world.
Crusade were carried out by people who considered themselves
devout Christians, and they were motivated by concern for the souls
(though not the bodies) of those who had fallen into error. Your
second guessing them at a distance of centuries is kind of shakey.
You're drifting into 'No True Scotsman' territory.
All arguments in defense of the crimes committed by the religious, in the >>>> name of religion, eventually become NTS arguments.
the religious and/or in the name of religion. How Christians are
supposed to be behave and how some of them behave are, sadly, all too
often two different things.
Indeed, the assertion appears to be that those who do so are not
behaving as Christians are supposed to behave, as that has been
understood for 2000 years.
And that some appear to have departed from that understanding.
There is a big difference from not behaving as you are supposed to be
behaving and developing your own version of what people are supposed
to do to justify your bad behavior.
Take for example the Albigensian crusade.
A common solder in that crusade is just following orders from his
lord. He'd do the same if the targets were fellow Catholics (as
indeed they mostly were).
His lord will mouth religious justifications for this crusade and might
even believe them. But he is mainly out for land and/or loot.
Innocent III, on the other hand, called for this crusade in the name of
Christ. The Cathars were no worldly threat to him or any of his
people. As he well knew.
You also might want to keep in mind that I include ideologies and
philosophies in the term "religion", including atheistic ones.
There are ideologies held by people who happen to be atheists.
But few people commit a crime on behalf of the god that does not
exist.
I can think of a few medical practitioners infamous for doing just
that -- unless you consider Science or Medicine a god.
Dictators attack or co-opt all other power structures in their
country. And this naturally will include churches, as possible
centres of opposition. But not because the dictator does
not believe in gods. Because he does not believe in
opposition.
In one of the mildest cases on record, the Landgrave of Hesse,
a protestant, declared that in his land the Host should be made
of the toughest possible bread, so that people would be
less prone to believe in transubstantiation (source is C. V.
Wedgwood's excellent "The Thirty Years War").
Few if any of the republicans in Spain in the 1930 were Protestant,
but in areas where Catholic churches were shut down, Protestant
ones were left open. As the latter had been banned until 1911,
they were not part of the power structure that opposed the
republic. Fellow sufferers, if anything.
Those
claiming that religions always have some members doing great evil
might also keep in mind the holodolomor and Pol Pot when attempting to
exclude atheistic systems from the status of "religion".
Note the implication that atheists are "members" of some
organization, as, for example, Methodists are. This is
simply not the case. I am a "member" of the set of
Atheists in the same sense that I am a member of the
set of right-handed people.
I have no loyalty to the set of right-handed people. I get no
mail asking for contribution to right-handed causes. Without
shame I use my left hand to type, pick up garbage bins, wield
a fork, and so forth. Being right-handed is not a religion.
Atheism is lack of belief in gods. That's all. It is not a religion.
No atheist speaks for me, nor do I obey any stricture offered by
other atheists on the grounds of our mutual atheism. I would be
prone to disobey, other things being equal.
Those crimes were committed by atheists (well, mostly) but not in
the name of atheism.
And yet, in another usenet group a couple decades ago, I found
atheists arranging funerals.
Which is a function of religion.
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the
sort of thing religions do.
True. I thought about that myself. It is also scary, because that makes
me wonder how much more bloodshed needs to happen and how many wars
before they reach our level.
Well, if you consider the Spanish Inquisition, I'd say they are well
on their way.
A lot of Muslims at least to belong to a religion of peace. Of course,
they interpret the commands to make war spiritually.
None of my friends are christian and at work I've met one. So I'd say
pretty rare if you ask me.
But how many of your friends/colleagues are college students?
There are a /lot/ of Christians world-wide. Christianity will be
around for a very long time.
In name yes, but as a vital force shaping peoples lives? I doubt it. I
know very few christians in europe. On paper of course they are, but
they have never visited a church and it doesn't factor into their lives
at all.
Who said anything about Europe? I said "world-wide".
Oh, and Verhoeven's /Spetters/ suggests that evangelism, in tents, in
still alive in Europe.
Jesus! ;) Ethics based on science? Clearly he didn't study much
philosophy. And before you dismiss me as a cold hearted scientist (which
I am not), let it be known that I do have a degree in philosophy and I completely
disagree with the science as ethics stance.
It is, of course, true that Science has its own set of ethics. But
those aren't founded on Science, they exist to keep Science reliable.
Many people responded negatively. I, myself, sent a response
suggesting he have a astrophysicist explain what astrophysics has to
say about, say, abortiion.
Good one!
Thank you. I had a lot of fun thinking it up.
That's one. And another favourite is, in my opinion, that you cannot do
accounting across people, and that there's no standard of measurement,
and don't even think about mixing in the time axis!
Ah, but that was the Editor's point -- that Science could be used to
help with at least some of these problems. That would, of course,
mostly be Social Science, not the harder forms.
On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:30:11 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<[email protected]> wrote:
That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
religion was invented.
No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
years.
Jesus is definitely recorded in the Gospels as preaching a high and
valid standard of morality. However, he didn't invent religion; Judaism
had been around for thousands of years by that time, for example.
And back when religion was what came from witch doctors, it was
already an instrument of tribal cohesion often used to justify
aggression against neighboring tribes.
John Savard
A lot of things that people think of as religion are actually culture, as witnessed by Christian missionaries making people put clothes on. Jesus didn't care much about clothing, but New Englanders sure did. Much of the complaints that westerners have about Islam is not in fact about anything
to do with Islam but about the culture of some peoples who have adopted Islam.
On 2/18/2024 8:36 PM, Titus G wrote:
On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
define science as a religion, snip
With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
contradiction could be a fact.
Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with
an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific
community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).
Gravity was invented?
The means by which fire can be deliberately created were invented, surely?
=46ire was invented?
Now, the Franklin Stove, /that/ was invented. But fire?
On 2/19/2024 3:55 PM, D wrote:
A lot of things that people think of as religion are actually culture, as >>> witnessed by Christian missionaries making people put clothes on. Jesus >>> didn't care much about clothing, but New Englanders sure did. Much of the >>> complaints that westerners have about Islam is not in fact about anything >>> to do with Islam but about the culture of some peoples who have adopted
Islam.
Interesting thought. Where do you draw the lines between culture and
religion? Are they possible to separate or are they always a mix by the
fact that religion exists within communities?
It varies. When Christianity was spreading in the Roman Empire, it
remained separate from the government.
Islam, OTOH, replaced the local culture and rulers, and regards
a Muslim theocracy the right and natural state.
That is why I consdier islam incompatible with modern western democracy.=20 >This is also a reason, I suspect, why quality of life is so bad in arabia= >=20
because authoritarianism is built into the core system.
D <[email protected]> wrote:
That is why I consdier islam incompatible with modern western democracy.=20 >> This is also a reason, I suspect, why quality of life is so bad in arabia= >> =20
because authoritarianism is built into the core system.
Don't blame Islam for that completely, as they were authoritarian before Islam came there.
Not so the case for Iran, which is dramatically different culturally.
--scott
On 2/19/2024 12:03 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:36:17 +1300, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote:
On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not
define science as a religion, snip
With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
contradiction could be a fact.
Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example
for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with >>> an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
And that's the nub of the problem: when science is treated as a
religion (and so, for those treating it that way, is a religion), it
is treated as Absolute Fact.
This is why, when Hobbits (Homo Floresiensis, if I remembered it right
this time) were discovered, one scientist insisted they must be
suffering from a medical condition, because their brains were too
small to be human. IOW, he took the studies of brain size vs cognitive
ability (showing a minimum size for human cognition) as Absolute Truth
instead of Scientific Hypothesis.
And I believe Wagner died despised by his fellow scientists, who
/knew/ that the continents could not move because that was an
Established Scientific Fact.
ITYM Wegner.
--This is often regarded as a form of /reification/.
Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific
community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).
Satire, I presume.
pt
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
A lot of Muslims at least to belong to a religion of peace. Of course,
they interpret the commands to make war spiritually.
Yes. I lived for a while in Indonesia and Thailand which have peaceful
and tolerant Muslim populations.
The thing about religion is that it doesn't really change culture or people. >When good people become Christian, they become good Christians. When evil >people become Christian they don't stop being evil, they just become evil >Christians.
In article <[email protected]>,
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 23:08:56 -0800, Dimensional Traveler >><[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/18/2024 8:36 PM, Titus G wrote:
On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not >>>>> define science as a religion, snip
With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
contradiction could be a fact.
Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example >>>> for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with >>>> an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
Defining science as a religion is obviously a ploy by the scientific
community to gain some respectability for the millions slaughtered by
their inventions, (eg fire, gravity, chicken bones).
Gravity was invented?
Chicken bones were invented?
Fire was invented?
Now, the Franklin Stove, /that/ was invented. But fire?
The means by which fire can be deliberately created were invented, surely?
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the
sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a >religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >confusing religion and culture?
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:30:11?AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<[email protected]> wrote:
That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
religion was invented.
No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000
years.
Jesus is definitely recorded in the Gospels as preaching a high and
valid standard of morality. However, he didn't invent religion; Judaism
had been around for thousands of years by that time, for example.
And back when religion was what came from witch doctors, it was
already an instrument of tribal cohesion often used to justify
aggression against neighboring tribes.
John Savard
Let me also add that given the 100s if not 1000s of christian
denominations I do not see that all of them agree on how to behave. Some >kill, some don't, some fornicate, some don't. Some have one wife other
more, some cannot marry and other can. Some fast, some dont, some eat some >things or others.
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler ><[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>=20
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the
sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a= >=20
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about=20 >>confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed
to increase the harvest by invoking supernatural phenomenon.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>=20
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the
sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a= >=20
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about=20 >>confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the
sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about
confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which
is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us
for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to
come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
On 2/20/2024 12:01 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 21:53:55 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:30:11?AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:56:47 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<[email protected]> wrote:
That 'pretty clear definition' included witch burnings, genocide
of 'heretics', progroms, etc. People have been using religion
(of every faith) as an excuse for their bad behaviour since
religion was invented.
No, it did not and dies not. That's the point: how Christians are
supposed to behave is clear and has been generally agreed on for 2000 >>>>> years.
Jesus is definitely recorded in the Gospels as preaching a high and
valid standard of morality. However, he didn't invent religion; Judaism >>>> had been around for thousands of years by that time, for example.
And back when religion was what came from witch doctors, it was
already an instrument of tribal cohesion often used to justify
aggression against neighboring tribes.
John Savard
Let me also add that given the 100s if not 1000s of christian
denominations I do not see that all of them agree on how to behave. Some >>> kill, some don't, some fornicate, some don't. Some have one wife other
more, some cannot marry and other can. Some fast, some dont, some eat some >>> things or others.
You are talking about (in some cases) piffles and (in other cases)
outliers.
I am talking about the common understanding of how individual
Christians are supposed to behave. Which some groups appear to have
abandoned.
Any time someone invokes 'common sense', or 'everyone agrees', an
alarm goes off in my head.
To speak of 'The common understanding of how individual
Christians are supposed to behave' as if it were clear defined,
universal, and invariant is to ignore reality .
The standard of 'good Christian behavior' has varied widely over time
and space. The Bible has enough material that any reading will be
selective and cherry picked, but the selections and cherries vary.
To claim that your own current definition is the only correct one
is prideful.
The Bible can and has been used to justify witch burning, slavery,
beating children, and the death penalty for a wide variety of
activities.
The people making such claims definitely considered themselves
'good Christians'.
The problem continues in the present day. For example, where does
your 'common understanding' come down on gay marriage? Whatever your
position is, explain why you're right, and the other side is wrong.
pt
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the
sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a >>> religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >>> confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which
is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us
for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to
come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
What is the most recent established religion?
which seems to be ultra-Orthodox/Fundamentalist Moonies.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the
sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a >>> religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >>> confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which
is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us
for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to
come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
And I believe Wagner died despised by his fellow scientists, who
/knew/ that the continents could not move because that was an
Established Scientific Fact.
ITYM Wegner.
On 2/20/2024 10:40 AM, D wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the >>>>> sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >>>> confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which
is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us
for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to
come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
There must be a half-dozen that came into existence in the last hour that I haven't heard of yet....
On 2/20/2024 1:40 PM, D wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the >>>>> sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >>>> confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which
is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us
for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to
come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
I'm tempted to say Trumpism, but won't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_new_religious_movements
lists a bunch. The most recent is 2015's
World Peace and Unification Sanctuary Church,
which seems to be ultra-Orthodox/Fundamentalist Moonies.
pt
On 21/02/2024 05:40, D wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the >>>>> sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >>>> confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which
is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us
for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to
come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
Probably Scientology.
Cheers,
Gary B-)
On 21/02/2024 05:40, D wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the >>>>> sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >>>> confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which
is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us
for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to
come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
Probably Scientology.
What is the most recent established religion?
Probably Scientology.
I'm not sure I'd consider that an "established religion".
The followers of the angel moron i might qualify.
A lot of things that people think of as religion are actually culture, as
witnessed by Christian missionaries making people put clothes on. Jesus
didn't care much about clothing, but New Englanders sure did. Much of the >> complaints that westerners have about Islam is not in fact about anything
to do with Islam but about the culture of some peoples who have adopted
Islam.
Interesting thought. Where do you draw the lines between culture and >religion? Are they possible to separate or are they always a mix by the
fact that religion exists within communities?
On 2/20/2024 11:33 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:47:49 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 12:03 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:36:17 +1300, Titus G <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>
On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do not >>>>>> define science as a religion, snip
With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre
contradiction could be a fact.
Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia),
religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an example >>>>> for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being,
whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture combined with >>>>> an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of
proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
And that's the nub of the problem: when science is treated as a
religion (and so, for those treating it that way, is a religion), it
is treated as Absolute Fact.
This is why, when Hobbits (Homo Floresiensis, if I remembered it right >>>> this time) were discovered, one scientist insisted they must be
suffering from a medical condition, because their brains were too
small to be human. IOW, he took the studies of brain size vs cognitive >>>> ability (showing a minimum size for human cognition) as Absolute Truth >>>> instead of Scientific Hypothesis.
And I believe Wagner died despised by his fellow scientists, who
/knew/ that the continents could not move because that was an
Established Scientific Fact.
ITYM Wegner.
Actually, ITIM Wegener.
A double typo! One vowel wrong and one dropped altogether!
Good catch, I deserved that.
A post correcting spelling seems to attract swarms of further
typos.
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
What is the most recent established religion?
Probably Scientology.
I'm not sure I'd consider that an "established religion".
It may not be as well-established as it was a few years ago, but it stil
has total assets of something like 1.75 billion dollars. This puts it at >about the value of Bose or Guitar Center but still well below Ford Motor
or IBM.
Now, whether it is a religion is a reasonable debate. The Germans do not >believe that it is.
The followers of the angel moron i might qualify.
Total assets exceeding $100 billion. Bigger by far than Home Depot,
nearly as big as IBM. Five times the size of US Steel.
On 2/20/2024 12:45 PM, Robert Woodward wrote:
In article <mh5BN.99606$[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>=20
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the >>>>>> sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a= >>>> =20
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about=20
confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed
to increase the harvest by invoking supernatural phenomenon.
I thought it was developed to improve the success of hunts.
Religion certainly predates agriculture.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 2/20/2024 10:40 AM, D wrote:Hence _established_. What is established? I would say enough followers
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the >>>>>> sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call >>>>> that a
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post
about
confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which >>>> is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us
for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to
come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
There must be a half-dozen that came into existence in the last hour
that I haven't heard of yet....
to be taken seriously by the local government.
D <[email protected]> wrote:
A lot of things that people think of as religion are actually culture, as >>> witnessed by Christian missionaries making people put clothes on. Jesus >>> didn't care much about clothing, but New Englanders sure did. Much of the >>> complaints that westerners have about Islam is not in fact about anything >>> to do with Islam but about the culture of some peoples who have adopted
Islam.
Interesting thought. Where do you draw the lines between culture and
religion? Are they possible to separate or are they always a mix by the
fact that religion exists within communities?
It's a difficult problem. But many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils of "Islam" do not exist in India or Pakistan, let alone
places like Indonesia.
And many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils of "Christianity" do not exist in many majority-Christian countries too.
--scott
You guys to realize that the bulk of these examples are, at least >peripherally, related to (if not part of) Christianity, right?
On 20/02/2024 18:40, D wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the >>>>> sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >>>> confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which
is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us
for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to
come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
According to Terry Pratchett's _Small Gods_,
religions start little, and grow. And between
the start and the later stages of development,
they may change beyond recognition. Ask Om.
Strictly the words "established religion"
mean one that a nation-state is married to.
But I assume you meant the newest religion
which is taken seriously by some people who
aren't mentally ill. I'm not saying that
religious people are mentally ill, but that
being mentally ill and worshipping your cat,
for instance, also isn't the behaviour that
you want to discuss.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are well
on the way at least to reforming their
national religions with themselves at
the centre.
Hence _established_. What is established? I would say enough followers to
be taken seriously by the local government.
D <[email protected]> wrote:
A lot of things that people think of as religion are actually culture, as >>> witnessed by Christian missionaries making people put clothes on. Jesus >>> didn't care much about clothing, but New Englanders sure did. Much of the >>> complaints that westerners have about Islam is not in fact about anything >>> to do with Islam but about the culture of some peoples who have adopted
Islam.
Interesting thought. Where do you draw the lines between culture and
religion? Are they possible to separate or are they always a mix by the
fact that religion exists within communities?
It's a difficult problem. But many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils of "Islam" do not exist in India or Pakistan, let alone
places like Indonesia.
And many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils of "Christianity" do not exist in many majority-Christian countries too.
On 21/02/2024 18:07, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/21/2024 11:18 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 12:54:57 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/20/2024 11:33 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 19:47:49 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 12:03 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 17:36:17 +1300, Titus G <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 19/02/24 10:09, D wrote:
Well, if you define science as a religion, of course it is. I do >>>>>>>>> not
define science as a religion, snip
With regard to the subject, I would like to check how that bizarre >>>>>>>> contradiction could be a fact.
Seriously, as Dimwire will confirm, (perhaps using glossolalia), >>>>>>>> religions are usually based solely on solid unchanging fact, an >>>>>>>> example
for many is the unalterable written word of a supernatural being, >>>>>>>> whereas science is based on hypothesis or vague conjecture
combined with
an unshakeable faith in arithmetic and has a long sordid history of >>>>>>>> proving its own facts incomplete or incorrect.
And that's the nub of the problem: when science is treated as a
religion (and so, for those treating it that way, is a religion), it >>>>>>> is treated as Absolute Fact.
This is why, when Hobbits (Homo Floresiensis, if I remembered it >>>>>>> right
this time) were discovered, one scientist insisted they must be
suffering from a medical condition, because their brains were too >>>>>>> small to be human. IOW, he took the studies of brain size vs
cognitive
ability (showing a minimum size for human cognition) as Absolute >>>>>>> Truth
instead of Scientific Hypothesis.
And I believe Wagner died despised by his fellow scientists, who >>>>>>> /knew/ that the continents could not move because that was an
Established Scientific Fact.
ITYM Wegner.
Actually, ITIM Wegener.
A double typo! One vowel wrong and one dropped altogether!
Good catch, I deserved that.
A post correcting spelling seems to attract swarms of further
typos.
Flocking behavior.
Observed many times with lost socks and rolling baskets at the
laundromat.
Things /really/ get strange when there are three of them -- one much
smaller than the other two.
IIRC, there was an SF story I read about a man who developed the
theory that (IIRC) bicycle spokes and closet hangers were different
stages of the same life-form.
I recall one with paperclips and wire coat hangers. You can never find
the first when you need one, but the latter seems to overpopulate
rapidly.
The story is of course: ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Or_All_the_Seas_with_Oysters>
James Nicoll's "Young People" usually seem to--
be talking for the benefit of someone old who
has read the story but has not understood it
/properly/, with modern prejudices. (James? ;-)
I'm not saying that that happened here. ><https://youngpeoplereadoldsff.com/story/or-all-the-seas-with-oysters>
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> wrote:
You guys to realize that the bulk of these examples are, at least >>peripherally, related to (if not part of) Christianity, right?
I think Jesus would disagree with this. At least with regards to the >Scientologists and Reverend Ike's Church of Mammon.
On 21/02/2024 16:37, Paul S Person wrote:
On 21 Feb 2024 15:02:30 -0000, [email protected] (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
What is the most recent established religion?
Probably Scientology.
I'm not sure I'd consider that an "established religion".
It may not be as well-established as it was a few years ago, but it stil >>> has total assets of something like 1.75 billion dollars. This puts it at >>> about the value of Bose or Guitar Center but still well below Ford Motor >>> or IBM.
Now, whether it is a religion is a reasonable debate. The Germans do not >>> believe that it is.
The followers of the angel moron i might qualify.
Total assets exceeding $100 billion. Bigger by far than Home Depot,
nearly as big as IBM. Five times the size of US Steel.
Since the First Church of Trump has not yet been founded, never mind
established, how about Chritian Nationalism?
You guys to realize that the bulk of these examples are, at least
peripherally, related to (if not part of) Christianity, right?
For all we know, something newer has been established in other
contexts.
To drag this back to science fiction,
Arthur C. Clarke offered "Chrislam" in
this 1993 novel. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hammer_of_God_(Clarke_novel)>
Is that link quoted all right?
They indoctrinate using VR and
"brain computer interface" technology.
I read this as bad, more so than Wikipedia
does. Wikipedia is neutral.
It's 2109. A big binary asteroid is a year
away from s colossal argument with Earth,
and extremist Chrislamists are on the
side of the asteroid.
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 20/02/2024 18:40, D wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the >>>>>> sort of thing religions do.
Eh.� *waggles hand*� Social expression of grief.� I wouldn't call that a >>>>> religious function.� Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >>>>> confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which >>>> is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us
for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to
come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
According to Terry Pratchett's _Small Gods_,
religions start little, and grow. And between
the start and the later stages of development,
they may change beyond recognition. Ask Om.
Strictly the words "established religion"
mean one that a nation-state is married to.
But I assume you meant the newest religion
which is taken seriously by some people who
aren't mentally ill. I'm not saying that
religious people are mentally ill, but that
being mentally ill and worshipping your cat,
for instance, also isn't the behaviour that
you want to discuss.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are well
on the way at least to reforming their
national religions with themselves at
the centre.
To me Trump and Putin is not religion. It's nationalism. Ideology can very >well fill the shoes of religion for some people, but I hesitate to lump
the two together.
In my opinion, for it to become religion I think two things would be
needed:
1. That they die.
2. Some kind of miracles attributed to them.
Absent that, it's just an ideology.--
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:16:49 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 20/02/2024 18:40, D wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the >>>>>>> sort of thing religions do.
Eh. *waggles hand* Social expression of grief. I wouldn't call that a
religious function. Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >>>>>> confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which >>>>> is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and
marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us >>>>> for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to >>>>> come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort
forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
According to Terry Pratchett's _Small Gods_,
religions start little, and grow. And between
the start and the later stages of development,
they may change beyond recognition. Ask Om.
Strictly the words "established religion"
mean one that a nation-state is married to.
But I assume you meant the newest religion
which is taken seriously by some people who
aren't mentally ill. I'm not saying that
religious people are mentally ill, but that
being mentally ill and worshipping your cat,
for instance, also isn't the behaviour that
you want to discuss.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are well
on the way at least to reforming their
national religions with themselves at
the centre.
To me Trump and Putin is not religion. It's nationalism. Ideology can very >> well fill the shoes of religion for some people, but I hesitate to lump
the two together.
In my opinion, for it to become religion I think two things would be
needed:
1. That they die.
2. Some kind of miracles attributed to them.
After they die, the miracle stories will appear soon enough.
Do you know that Aceh province in Indonesia is under sharia Law?
Not a good place to be different.
And some of the other recent changes to Indonesian Law - such as it is -
are pushing the Rainbow <Insert currency of your choice> well away.
And many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils ofWe're more in the "retail" stage of christian atrocities, these days.
"Christianity" do not exist in many majority-Christian countries too.
Gary R. Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
Do you know that Aceh province in Indonesia is under sharia Law?
Not a good place to be different.
Sort of, yes. In the sense that Brooklyn is under Halakah.
And some of the other recent changes to Indonesian Law - such as it is -
are pushing the Rainbow <Insert currency of your choice> well away.
Sadly this is true, although it should be pointed out that lots of the
folks promoting that stuff are Christian too. And even some Buddhists.
And many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils ofWe're more in the "retail" stage of christian atrocities, these days.
"Christianity" do not exist in many majority-Christian countries too.
Dunno, Hawaii is still reeling from the missionary influence, and plenty
of folks in Canada are discovering some of the things the Catholic Church
did in the 20th century were not so savory there.
--scott
Gary R. Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
Do you know that Aceh province in Indonesia is under sharia Law?
Not a good place to be different.
Sort of, yes. In the sense that Brooklyn is under Halakah.
And some of the other recent changes to Indonesian Law - such as it is - >>are pushing the Rainbow <Insert currency of your choice> well away.
Sadly this is true, although it should be pointed out that lots of the
folks promoting that stuff are Christian too. And even some Buddhists.
And many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils ofWe're more in the "retail" stage of christian atrocities, these days.
"Christianity" do not exist in many majority-Christian countries too.
Dunno, Hawaii is still reeling from the missionary influence, and plenty
of folks in Canada are discovering some of the things the Catholic Church
did in the 20th century were not so savory there.
On 2/23/2024 4:54 AM, D wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gary R. Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
Do you know that Aceh province in Indonesia is under sharia Law?
Not a good place to be different.
Sort of, yes.� In the sense that Brooklyn is under Halakah.
And some of the other recent changes to Indonesian Law - such as it is - >>>> are pushing the Rainbow <Insert currency of your choice> well away.
Sadly this is true, although it should be pointed out that lots of the
folks promoting that stuff are Christian too.� And even some Buddhists.
And many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils ofWe're more in the "retail" stage of christian atrocities, these days.
"Christianity" do not exist in many majority-Christian countries too. >>>>>
Dunno, Hawaii is still reeling from the missionary influence, and plenty >>> of folks in Canada are discovering some of the things the Catholic Church >>> did in the 20th century were not so savory there.
--scott
I'd like to add here that when it comes to the catholic church and
sexual abuse I don't think the connection is between the religion and
the act. I think the position of the priest in society is what attracts
men who have the tendency for that behaviour.
If you're a young man in a deeply Catholic culture, and you find that
you're not attracted to women, joining the priesthood is a way to
avoid dating and marriage which is socially acceptable.
On 2/22/2024 8:39 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 23:16:49 +0100, D <[email protected]> wrote:Well, I'm sure that if Trump gets elected to President again some bills
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 20/02/2024 18:40, D wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 12:10:11 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/19/2024 9:17 AM, Paul S Person wrote:<snippo>
So, yes, some atheists do act together and some of those acts are the >>>>>>>> sort of thing religions do.
Eh.� *waggles hand*� Social expression of grief.� I wouldn't call that a
religious function.� Didn't someone elsewhere in this thread post about >>>>>>> confusing religion and culture?
And where do you think religion came from? The Monolith?
Religion developed, in part, to celebrate births, coming-of-age (which >>>>>> is a lot more significant when child mortality rates are high), and >>>>>> marriage, and to console the grieving.
Religion is a natural outgrowth of human nature. It has been with us >>>>>> for a long long time, and it will be with us for a long long time to >>>>>> come.
It is possible to stamp out a particular form of religion from a
particular area. But you will shortly find a religion of some sort >>>>>> forming right under your nose. But not if you insist that the
practices are "cultural" rather than "religious".
What is the most recent established religion?
According to Terry Pratchett's _Small Gods_,
religions start little, and grow. And between
the start and the later stages of development,
they may change beyond recognition. Ask Om.
Strictly the words "established religion"
mean one that a nation-state is married to.
But I assume you meant the newest religion
which is taken seriously by some people who
aren't mentally ill. I'm not saying that
religious people are mentally ill, but that
being mentally ill and worshipping your cat,
for instance, also isn't the behaviour that
you want to discuss.
Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are well
on the way at least to reforming their
national religions with themselves at
the centre.
To me Trump and Putin is not religion. It's nationalism. Ideology can very >>> well fill the shoes of religion for some people, but I hesitate to lump
the two together.
In my opinion, for it to become religion I think two things would be
needed:
1. That they die.
2. Some kind of miracles attributed to them.
After they die, the miracle stories will appear soon enough.
that can't get thru Congress currently will "miraculously" arrive on his >desk to sign.
In article <ur8mno$gdf$[email protected]>,
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
Gary R. Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
Do you know that Aceh province in Indonesia is under sharia Law?
Not a good place to be different.
Sort of, yes. In the sense that Brooklyn is under Halakah.
And some of the other recent changes to Indonesian Law - such as it is - >>>are pushing the Rainbow <Insert currency of your choice> well away.
Sadly this is true, although it should be pointed out that lots of the >>folks promoting that stuff are Christian too. And even some Buddhists.
And many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils ofWe're more in the "retail" stage of christian atrocities, these days.
"Christianity" do not exist in many majority-Christian countries too.
Dunno, Hawaii is still reeling from the missionary influence, and plenty
of folks in Canada are discovering some of the things the Catholic Church >>did in the 20th century were not so savory there.
That's true in the sense that at given moment people discover established >fact but the various church child molesting scandals--including but
not limited to the Catholic Church--broke decades ago.
In article <uracgn$34t$[email protected]>,
James Nicoll <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <ur8mno$gdf$[email protected]>,
Scott Dorsey <[email protected]> wrote:
Gary R. Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote:
Do you know that Aceh province in Indonesia is under sharia Law?
Not a good place to be different.
Sort of, yes. In the sense that Brooklyn is under Halakah.
And some of the other recent changes to Indonesian Law - such as it is - >>>>are pushing the Rainbow <Insert currency of your choice> well away.
Sadly this is true, although it should be pointed out that lots of the >>>folks promoting that stuff are Christian too. And even some Buddhists.
And many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils ofWe're more in the "retail" stage of christian atrocities, these days.
"Christianity" do not exist in many majority-Christian countries too. >>>>>
Dunno, Hawaii is still reeling from the missionary influence, and plenty >>>of folks in Canada are discovering some of the things the Catholic Church >>>did in the 20th century were not so savory there.
That's true in the sense that at given moment people discover established >>fact but the various church child molesting scandals--including but
not limited to the Catholic Church--broke decades ago.
I wasn't thinking about the molestations, I was thinking about the attempts >to convert indigenous people going so horribly wrong.
A lot of things that people think of as religion are actually culture, as
witnessed by Christian missionaries making people put clothes on. Jesus
didn't care much about clothing, but New Englanders sure did. Much of the >> complaints that westerners have about Islam is not in fact about anything
to do with Islam but about the culture of some peoples who have adopted
Islam.
Interesting thought. Where do you draw the lines between culture and >religion? Are they possible to separate or are they always a mix by the
fact that religion exists within communities?
And yet, in another usenet group a couple decades ago, I found
atheists arranging funerals.
Which is a function of religion.
It varies. When Christianity was spreading in the Roman Empire, it
remained separate from the government.
Islam, OTOH, replaced the local culture and rulers, and regards
a Muslim theocracy the right and natural state.
Perhaps you should try to rephrase it to take into account the fact
that Christianity, by taking over and replacing the Roman Empire in
the West, shaped the European cultures for quite a long time.=20
Dunno, Hawaii is still reeling from the missionary influence, and plenty
of folks in Canada are discovering some of the things the Catholic Church
did in the 20th century were not so savory there.
Muslims also gave Spain the inquisition which they re-made into
something much worse. The Muslim inquisition was mostly about
"conversos" (Jews who 'converted" to Islam but retained secretly
Jewish practices at home. Taught the Spanish a few of their favorite
interrogation techniques too!)
As far as I know this is entirely false.
The papal and episcopal inquisitions go back to 1200. A papal decree
gave absolution to those who used torture in this work. There is no
trace of a Muslim origin in this.
In various Muslim-ruled societies Christians pretended to convert to
avoid the various fiscal and legal penalties applied to non-Muslims.
Mostly they were successful in this, though after a few generations the >conversions often became sincere.
It would not be surprising if a few Jewish people did the same. But
I've never read of it. Nor of any "Muslim inquisition" to deal with it.
If there was one it was notably unsuccessful at finding false Muslims
while the Spanish Inquisition was remarkably successful in its task.
In a particularly violent anti-Semitic wave in the late 1300s, many
Spanish Jews converted to Christianity - this was regarded as unusual as >previous pogroms had not had this effect.
These were known as conversos, (a Spanish word, not an Arabic one) and
as you might expect, many of the conversions were not sincere (though
some very much were). The Spanish requested a special inquisition to
deal with this "problem". But its remit included all forms of "heresy".
One of their principal torture techniques was waterboarding, and there
is as far as I can tell no evidence of this being used in the Muslim
period. The other, the strappado, may go back farther, but again there
is no evidence that it originated in the Islamic world. The first
reference I can find is of Christians using it on a fellow Christian.
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:17:59 -0800, Paul S Person ><[email protected]d> wrote:
And yet, in another usenet group a couple decades ago, I found
atheists arranging funerals.
Which is a function of religion.
Which is why these days they're usually called "memorial services" or
just "memorials".
I remember two years ago when my wife died I did NOT want my brother--
as a pallbearer because my wife and him had been on bad terms but was
happy to have his son doing so since he likie all the other
pallbearers were under 35 - and they didn't have to go very far just
from the chapel to the hearse parked outside. (While I walked behind
and my brother led the other folks who mostly just went back to their
cars - some going to the cemetery some not)
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 11:06:23 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:17:59 -0800, Paul S Person >><[email protected]d> wrote:
And yet, in another usenet group a couple decades ago, I found
atheists arranging funerals.
Which is a function of religion.
Which is why these days they're usually called "memorial services" or
just "memorials".
I'm not sure what the point here is. The post I refer to clearly said >"atheist funeral" (IIRC). When I look up "memorial service meaning" on
Bing I get:
"a ceremony of religious worship to commemorate the life of a person, >typically someone who has recently died:"
The Horny Goat wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:24:25 -0500, William Hyde <[email protected]>
wrote:
I'm well aware Spain was not the first Inquisition. I'm suggesting theMuslims also gave Spain the inquisition which they re-made into
something much worse. The Muslim inquisition was mostly about
"conversos" (Jews who 'converted" to Islam but retained secretly
Jewish practices at home. Taught the Spanish a few of their favorite
interrogation techniques too!)
As far as I know this is entirely false.
The papal and episcopal inquisitions go back to 1200. A papal decree
gave absolution to those who used torture in this work. There is no
trace of a Muslim origin in this.
Spanish inquisitors (which I'm NOT using as a euphemism simply the
inquisitors that were Spanish) learned a few things from their
previous overlords.
There is no evidence of a Muslim inquisition in Spain, and the tortures
used in the Spanish inquisition are not Muslim in origin.
But I have found one point where you may be right:
Things got much worse for the Jews, and Christians, once the Berber >dynasties took over about 1100. Pogroms occurred, and while Jews had >earlier fled Christian kingdoms to refuge in Muslim Spain, now some went
the other way, or to more tolerant Muslim lands.
The problem of false conversions first occurred when a more extreme
Berber ruler took over Spain around 1200 and forced conversions of >Christians and Jews. Everybody knew that many if not most of these >conversions were insincere, but I have seen zero evidence that the
Muslims started any sort of inquisition to find out who was or was not >sincere. Shutting down the churches and synagogues and confiscating
their wealth may have been the real aim.
However, they did require Jews to wear distinctive clothing, yellow in >colour, which reminds me of the special garment, the sanbenito,which the >Spanish inquisition forced convicted "heretics" to wear on Sundays and
some other occasions. So there is that connection.
This period lasted a generation until a sane ruler took over, so it
ended 260 years before the SI got rolling.
Again Muslim 'inquisitors' were mostly interested
in Jewish "conversos" (those who claimed to be Muslims but were doing
Jewish rituals at home)
The term "converso" is a Spanish one, applied to Jews who converted to >Christianity. I have never seen it used to describe Jews who converted
to Islam (falsely or not) and the Muslims would not use a Spanish word
for this.
And why would their main efforts not be applied to the far larger number
of insincere converts from Christianity?
I do know of some Christians who falsely converted under Turkish rule -
they got more heat from Christian churches than from the Muslims, who >frankly didn't care though in theory a false conversion was (and in some >places still is) punishable by death.
In various Muslim-ruled societies Christians pretended to convert to
avoid the various fiscal and legal penalties applied to non-Muslims.
Mostly they were successful in this, though after a few generations the
conversions often became sincere.
It would not be surprising if a few Jewish people did the same. But
I've never read of it. Nor of any "Muslim inquisition" to deal with it. >>> If there was one it was notably unsuccessful at finding false Muslims
while the Spanish Inquisition was remarkably successful in its task.
In a particularly violent anti-Semitic wave in the late 1300s, many
Spanish Jews converted to Christianity - this was regarded as unusual as >>> previous pogroms had not had this effect.
These were known as conversos, (a Spanish word, not an Arabic one) and
as you might expect, many of the conversions were not sincere (though
some very much were). The Spanish requested a special inquisition to
deal with this "problem". But its remit included all forms of "heresy".
Which as I stated were something the Muslim rulers of Spain also cared
about.
You stated it. But I've seen no evidence either from you or from my >reading of history. They don't appear to have cared enough to do much
of anything except make Jewish "converts" wear embarrassing clothing.
And that didn't last long.
As opposed to their treatment of Muslim schismatics, which could be
severe. Not a lot of Shia Muslims in Spain.
One of their principal torture techniques was waterboarding, and there
is as far as I can tell no evidence of this being used in the Muslim
period. The other, the strappado, may go back farther, but again there >>> is no evidence that it originated in the Islamic world. The first
reference I can find is of Christians using it on a fellow Christian.
I have no doubt in the ability of Europeans to "improve" on Muslim
techniques.
Irrelevant. There is absolutely zero evidence that these techniques
were learned from Muslims.
I hold no brief for the Muslim rulers of Spain, who were imperialists
with a religious agenda which, at best, imposed serious restrictions on
the rights of non-Muslims (which was no change for the Jews, as their
rights were severely restricted under Christian rule once the Visigoths >converted to Catholicism - as Arians they had been rather tolerant).
And as stated above the persecution of other religions became much
worse, terrible indeed, when more extreme Muslims from North Africa took >over some time in the eleventh century. Even other Muslims suffered
under these rulers.
But the Spanish inquisition was an entirely Christian concept, taking no >inspiration - except for humiliating clothing, perhaps - from any
Islamic predecessor. They figured it out all by themselves, and worked
with an efficiency which would have been admirable, if it were in a
decent cause. Except for the corruption, of course.
I did a little internet searching on these claims and now my YouTube >offerings are packed with right-wing videos. Coincidence?
I think not!
Paul S Person <[email protected]d> writes:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2024 11:06:23 -0800, The Horny Goat <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Feb 2024 09:17:59 -0800, Paul S Person >>><[email protected]d> wrote:
And yet, in another usenet group a couple decades ago, I found
atheists arranging funerals.
Which is a function of religion.
Which is why these days they're usually called "memorial services" or >>>just "memorials".
I'm not sure what the point here is. The post I refer to clearly said >>"atheist funeral" (IIRC). When I look up "memorial service meaning" on
Bing I get:
"a ceremony of religious worship to commemorate the life of a person, >>typically someone who has recently died:"
Logical fallacy. Ceremonies to remember the dead predate religion.
I recently went onto one of those contractor-consolidating web sites
and copped to being interested in a new roof (the old one being nearly
25 years old and our roof guy saying it should be replaced soon), and
now all those pesky geiger-counter ads (from a recent discussion here
that included a link to Amazon for -- guess what?) and chess sets
(another recent discussion here) have been replaced by -- roofing
companies. Which, since I don't recall mentioning this here before,
rather lets this group off the hook, as it were, for now, anyway.
Still, there is a bright side to this clear surveillance-society
behavior: it is unfocused and so unlikely to be governmental. No, it
is simply Capitalism reduced to petty Hucksterism.
Scott Dorsey wrote:
And many of the things that people talk about as cultural evils of
"Christianity" do not exist in many majority-Christian countries too.
Could you give me some examples?
You seem to have very interesting thoughts on this topic. Do you have a >background within this field or is it just a hobby of yours?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 41:27:35 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,410 |