Political ThreadsThis section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:
You're not even refuting what he said...you just don't understand it.
-spence
I am refuting it. He said Christian radicals are the "taliban" of Christianity. I refute that. There are radical Christians out there, but we aren't responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths. We don't support the barbaric treatment of women.
By the way, what Murdoch actually said? He said that rape is a horrible crime. But he said if life gets created from that act, it's God's will. He didn't say the rape is God's will, he said the creation of life is God's will. If you believe in God, then you believe that God intended for intercourse to sometimes create life, regardless of the method of conception. I don't know why God didn't create a mechanism to prevent pregnancy in the case of rape. But he didn't. Therefore, according to what I believe, it was His will to allow for some rape victims to get pregnant.
Does that mean I think rape is no big deal? Hell, no. But I don't see the subsequent miracle of life as morally equivalent to the repugnant violation that preceded it.
I am refuting it. He said Christian radicals are the "taliban" of Christianity. I refute that. There are radical Christians out there, but we aren't responsible for thousands and thousands of deaths. We don't support the barbaric treatment of women.
I would imagine that the victims of the crusades, spanish inqusition, salem witch trials (etc, ad nauseum) might not agree with you...
I would imagine that the victims of the crusades, spanish inqusition, salem witch trials (etc, ad nauseum) might not agree with you...
Just Sayin'.
This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."
Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.
This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."
Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.
Doesn't mean their poo don't smell.
Shall we go into cults and what they have done in the name of "God"?
They're present day!
Doesn't mean their poo don't smell.
Shall we go into cults and what they have done in the name of "God"?
They're present day!
Sure, lets go into all the cults, including the progressive cult that treats government as a god, and what that cult has done, under their god's guise of "fairness" and "equality," to individual rights. And that's present day!
It appears that people think their god is better than other folk's god. Don't everyody's god poo stink? That seems to be the nature of poo.
If you don't poo in my back yard, I won't poo in yours.
This reminds me of a line by Christopher Marlowe in his play "The Jew of Malta.": "Thou hast committed fornication: but that was in another country, and besides, the wench is dead."
Beating the dead horse of the past is not a remedy for redemption. I believe Jim in CT is referring to present day Christianity.
And that reminds me of George Santayana's famous quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
If one is willing to live life by the tenets set forth in a two thousand year old book, then they shouldn't conveniently ignore all of the events that occurred afterwards (as a direct result of said book). That goes for christianity, islam, judaism, etc, etc.
And that reminds me of George Santayana's famous quote:
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".
I admire Santayana's writings very much. I especially am in tune with his views on nature. Not the syruppy isn't it all beautiful and scenic and lets take a picture view, but on nature being the foundation through which we experience life.
As for the quote of which you are reminded, it has become a truism. We now apply it to the horrors and wars of the past. But Santayana was not referring only to destructive events, he was talking about the destruction of the past itself. There is much in history that he loves. He is very much a traditionalist and a believer that much of the past is good and we would not be "condemned" to repeat but would be blessed to retain.
A fuller quote which includes what immediately is written before the famous passage is: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
This so much applies to what has happened in the history of our country. The Founders searched the past, and retained that which previous experience from classical history to their present day would best secure natural liberty. They weren't about absolute change. They were about improving history and the liberty of the beings that populate it. Then, a movement, progressivism, sprung from cataclysmic 19th century thinkers who wanted to reject the past as a means to improve the lot of the common man. Their "theories" were not based in nature as a foundation, but nature to be tamed and molded to fit what they considered good. That movement spread to "intellectuals" here, ironically, as an administrative method copied from Prussia which was instituted there to keep the masses from overthrowing the monarchy. The Progressives considered the Constitution "outdated," irrelevant, and an obstruction to their goal of an all-powerful system of central government which could more efficiently deliver and administer an "effective" freedom to the people rather than a merely legal freedom garanteed by the Constitution. It is this administrative system based on "modern" thinkers rather than past experience which we have today. Actually that "modern" system has been applied in recent history from WWI to the present in the West and, in a more severe form, in the East. It is no longer modern and the experience of effective liberty has not been as beneficial to freedom as was legal liberty. Actually the trajectory has been to benefit collective groups at the expense of the individual.
To that point, you might consider another Santayana quote: "individualism is in one sense the only possible ideal; for whatever social order may be most valuable can be valuable only for its effect on conscious individuals."
Another quote by him that I find more interesting than the rest: "There is eternal war in nature . . . War is but resisted change; and change must needs be resisted so long as the organism it would destroy retains any vitality." This can not only apply, again, to the Constitution and the war being waged on it and the resistance to that change if there is enough vitality left in the resistance. It also gives the lie to the quest for peace without victory. We are the product of war. Every molecule of our being is at war to survive and flourish against constant invasions of microbes and forces of nature. It is a war which we, as individuals will eventually lose. But we live on with the progeny who survive natural deaths and unnatural abortions and who will continue the battle. Our universal, material, biological inheritance is composed of this battle and every fiber of our being is informed by it. It is our natural mode. We must win to survive. We cannot compromise in this battle, not only with the forces of nature, but against the human forces that wish to enslave or destroy us. Santayana also said "Only the dead have seen the end of war." Peace will come with victory, either by those who wish to enslave or those who wish to be free. And that peace will last only until the next battle.
If one is willing to live life by the tenets set forth in a two thousand year old book, then they shouldn't conveniently ignore all of the events that occurred afterwards (as a direct result of said book). That goes for christianity, islam, judaism, etc, etc.
We humans have this wonderful capacity to misread. Often we do so intentionally. If we have a purpose that may be a direct contradiction to a bible, or a Constitution, but knowing the influence of quoting or adhering to that bible or constitution, we may with malice "interpret" those binding documents in a way that makes it easy to impose other than what is in them. Such is the unfortunate and malicious way that good books and constitutions are corrupted and thus lead to "events that occur afterwards," and which can erroneously be seen "as a direct result" of those documents.
As for The Bible, the "New Testament" version, much is blamed on it, such as inquisitions and conquests, which are not professed in the book. Certainly there have been those who seemed to read the words in ways not intended and twisted them to aid in horrific events. Blaming the Bible would assume, since you consider it the direct cause, that such horrific events would not have occurred if there was no Bible. Nonsense. The Bible was an excuse. Something else would have been the cause if there was no Bible. Remember the quote about those who cannot remember the past. The original history of Christianity was one of suffering and persecution and poverty and enslavement. Christ was a redeemer of the unfortunate, not a torturer. Those that forgot that message were the cause of being condemned to repeat the horrors that original Christians wanted us to escape.
Last edited by detbuch; 10-26-2012 at 07:45 PM..
Reason: typos and addition
We humans have this wonderful capacity to misread. Often we do so intentionally. If we have a purpose that may be a direct contradiction to a bible, or a Constitution, but knowing the influence of quoting or adhering to that bible or constitution, we may with malice "interpret" those binding documents in a way that makes it easy to impose other than what is in them. Such is the unfortunate and malicious way that good books and constitutions are corrupted and thus lead to "events that occur afterwards," and which can erroneously be seen "as a direct result" of those documents.
As for The Bible, the "New Testament" version, much is blamed on it, such as inquisitions and conquests, which are not professed in the book. Certainly there have been those who seemed to read the words in ways not intended and twisted them to aid in horrific events. Blaming the Bible would assume, since you consider it the direct cause, that such horrific events would not have occurred if there was no Bible. Nonsense. The Bible was an excuse. Something else would have been the cause if there was no Bible. Remember the quote about those who cannot remember the past. The original history of Christianity was one of suffering and persecution and poverty and enslavement. Christ was a redeemer of the unfortunate, not a torturer. Those that forgot that message were the cause of being condemned to repeat the horrors that original Christians wanted us to escape.
Excellent points. What a great discussion. Thank you for expanding upon Santayana's message. I particularly like the "eternal war" segment- Could you source that for me? I'd like to read it in its fullest.
While I agree with you that the bible was used as an excuse, the fact remains that it was the direct cause. It doesn't matter that someone could have found a different excuse if there was no bible. My point (and vaguely relating to SD's original topic) is simply that religious extremism is present in both religions. Obviously there's nothing identical to the Taliban in modern day (<50 years) christianity (unless you consider the catholic church and altar boys), but the history of both religions is stained with blood.
And it's still worth noting that while I'm not religious, I do feel that overall the Bible (and other religious tomes- the Quran, Torah, etc) have contributed to more good than evil in this world. They are all a simple collection of guidelines, intended to be interpreted loosely in order to promote fellowship. Like you said- it's the zealots and crazies that give the religions a bad name. I'm not a subscriber to blind faith- while I consider myself extremely spiritual, I don't get organized religion. I've seen too many people profess themselves as "good christians", yet they lie, cheat, steal, and are quite generally abominable. But for some people, religion is their answer, and it really helps them turn their life around. I can respect that.
I still think I follow the George Carlin tenets though.
Wow,way to keep the thread going with no clue what I meant.I certainly was not comparing Christianity with the Taliban. The comparison was between two groups who take their religious beliefs to the extreme. In my opinion detbutch and JimCT(shock) display just that when compared with the majority of their Christian peers. I think the Taliban subscribe to similar passion when compared with the majority of their peers. I would also venture a guess that history would reveal more deaths in the name of Ghristianity than all other religions combined.
I would imagine that the victims of the crusades, spanish inqusition, salem witch trials (etc, ad nauseum) might not agree with you...
Just Sayin'.
OK, I am talking abuot the times we live in. If you can find any victims of those crimes, I will apologize.
Christians are humans, which mean swe are all far from perfect. But we are not, in any way, the moral equivalent of the Taliban. We don't hurt thousands of people in the name of our religion.
OK, I am talking abuot the times we live in. If you can find any victims of those crimes, I will apologize.
Christians are humans, which mean swe are all far from perfect. But we are not, in any way, the moral equivalent of the Taliban. We don't hurt thousands of people in the name of our religion.
Comment was meant more tongue-in-cheek. But for a few examples:
Army of God bombing abortion clinics?
The KKK?
Catholic/Protestant conflicts in Ireland?
Anders Breivik?
The NAZIS?? (which to be fair about half of the ruling party members rejected christianity, but radical christian ideology was a major part of the propaganda)
My point is simply that when it comes to religion, no one's hands are clean.
Unless you're a Buddhist. I can't think of any Buddhist bombings
Does that mean I think rape is no big deal? Hell, no. But I don't see the subsequent miracle of life as morally equivalent to the repugnant violation that preceded it.
Lets address this with a satirical piece a friend just happened to link:
Hi! I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have. There’s just something about making the point to a woman that her consent and her control of her own body is not relevant against the need for a man to possess that body and control it that just plain gets me off. A guy’s got needs, you know? And my need is for control. Sweet, sweet control.
So I want to take time out of my schedule to thank you for supporting my right to control a woman’s life, not just when I’m raping her, but for all the rest of her life as well.
Ah, I see by your surprised face that you at the very least claim to have no idea what I’m talking about. Well, here’s the thing. Every time you say “I oppose a woman’s right to abortion, even in cases of rape,” what you’re also saying is “I believe that a man who rapes a woman has more of a right to control a woman’s body and life than that woman does.”
Oh, look. That surprised face again. All right, then. On the chance that you’re not giving me that surprised face just for the sake of public appearances, let me explain it to you, because it’s important for me that you know just how much I appreciate everything you’re doing for me.
So, let’s say I’ve raped a woman, as I do, because it’s my thing. I’ve had my fun, reminding that woman where she stands on the whole “being able to control things about her life” thing. But wait! There’s more. Since I didn’t use a condom (maybe I’m confident I can get other people to believe it was consensual, you see, or maybe I just like it that way), one thing has led to another and I’ve gotten this woman pregnant.
Now, remember how I said the thing I really like about raping a woman is the control it gives me over her? Well, getting a woman pregnant is even better. Because long after I’m gone, she still has to deal with me and what I’ve done to her. She has to deal with what’s happening to her body. She has to deal with doctor visits. She has to deal with the choice whether to have an abortion or not — which means she has to deal with everyone in the country, including you, having an opinion about it and giving her crap about it. And if she does have an abortion, she has to deal with all the hassle of that, too, because folks like you, of course, have gone out of your way to make it a hassle, which I appreciate. Thank you.
Every moment of that process, she has to be thinking of me, and how I’ve forced all of this on her — exercised my ability to bend her life away from what it was to what I’ve made of it. Me exercising my control.
I gotta tell you, it feels awesome.
But! You know what would feel even more awesome? The knowledge that, if you get your way and abortion is outlawed even in cases of rape, that my control of her will continue through all the rest of her life.
First, because she’ll have no legal choice about whether to have the baby I put in her — sorry, dearie, you have no control at all! You have to have it! That’s nine months of having your body warp and twist and change because I decided that you needed a little lesson on who’s actually running the show. That’s sweet.
Once the baby’s born, the woman will have to decide whether to keep it. Here’s an interesting fact: Of the women who have gotten pregnant from rape who give birth to that baby, most keep the baby, by a ratio of about five to one. So my ability to change the life of the woman just keeps growing, doesn’t it? From the rape, to the nine months of the pregnancy, to the rest of her life dealing with the child I raped into her. Of course, she could put the kid up for adoption, but that’s its own bundle of issues, isn’t it? And even then, she’s dealing with the choices I made for her, when I exercised my control over her life.
Best of all, I get to do all that without much consequence! Oh, sure, theoretically I can get charged with rape and go to prison for it. But you know what? For every hundred men who rape, only three go to prison. Those are pretty good odds for me, especially since — again! — folks like you like to muddy up the issue saying things like “forcible rape.” Keep doing that! It’s working out great for me.
As for the kid, well, oddly enough, most women I rape want nothing to do with me afterward, so it’s not like I will have to worry about child support or any other sort of responsibility… unless of course I decide that I haven’t taught that woman a big enough lesson about who’s really in control of her life. Did you know that 31 states in this country don’t keep rapists from seeking custody or visitation rights? How great is that? That’s just one more thing she has to worry about — me crawling out of the woodwork to remind her of what I did, and am continuing to do, to her life.
Look how much control you want to give me over that woman! I really can’t thank you enough for it. It warms my heart to know no matter how much I rape, or how many women I impregnate through my non-consensual sexual battery, you have my back, when it comes to reminding every woman I humiliate who is actually the boss of her. It’s me! It’s always been me! You’ll make sure it’ll always be me. You’ll see to that.
I am totally voting for you this election.
Yours,
Just Another Rapist.
P.S.: I love it when you say that you “stand for innocent life” when it comes to denying abortions in cases of rape! It implicitly suggests that the women I rape are in some way complicit in and guilty of the crimes I commit on top of, and inside of, their bodies! Which works out perfectly for me. Keep it up!
Hi! I’m a rapist. I’m one of those men who likes to force myself on women without their consent or desire and then batter them sexually. The details of how I do this are not particularly important at the moment — although I love when you try to make distinctions about “forcible rape” or “legitimate rape” because that gives me all sorts of wiggle room — but I will tell you one of the details about why I do it: I like to control women and, also and independently, I like to remind them how little control they have. There’s just something about making the point to a woman that her consent and her control of her own body is not relevant against the need for a man to possess that body and control it that just plain gets me off. A guy’s got needs, you know? And my need is for control. Sweet, sweet control.
Dear lowly esteemed and evil rapist: my allegience is to the Constitution, not your perverted need. One individual's unconsented control over another is as repugnant to me as a government's unconsented control over the individual. I believe government, that which governs least, is necessary, and that the people must consent to it. I believe that the government and the people must be governed by the rule of law to which they have consented. Tyrants like you are as odious to me as is a tyrannical government.
So I want to take time out of my schedule to thank you for supporting my right to control a woman’s life, not just when I’m raping her, but for all the rest of her life as well.
Ah, I see by your surprised face that you at the very least claim to have no idea what I’m talking about. Well, here’s the thing. Every time you say “I oppose a woman’s right to abortion, even in cases of rape,” what you’re also saying is “I believe that a man who rapes a woman has more of a right to control a woman’s body and life than that woman does.”
I do not support your right to control anybody but yourself, which you apparently are not capable of doing. I support the people's right to choose on the legality of abortion. I do not support the Federal Government dictating that right. It is not granted that power in the Constitution. I am not surprised by the weasely words of a control freak. I have seen the words of progressive politicians and judges that twist the words of the Constitution to allow them to control us in ways that Constitution would not allow. I am very familiar and not surprised by this tactic.
Oh, look. That surprised face again. All right, then. On the chance that you’re not giving me that surprised face just for the sake of public appearances, let me explain it to you, because it’s important for me that you know just how much I appreciate everything you’re doing for me.
So, let’s say I’ve raped a woman, as I do, because it’s my thing. I’ve had my fun, reminding that woman where she stands on the whole “being able to control things about her life” thing. But wait! There’s more. Since I didn’t use a condom (maybe I’m confident I can get other people to believe it was consensual, you see, or maybe I just like it that way), one thing has led to another and I’ve gotten this woman pregnant.
Now, remember how I said the thing I really like about raping a woman is the control it gives me over her? Well, getting a woman pregnant is even better. Because long after I’m gone, she still has to deal with me and what I’ve done to her. She has to deal with what’s happening to her body. She has to deal with doctor visits. She has to deal with the choice whether to have an abortion or not — which means she has to deal with everyone in the country, including you, having an opinion about it and giving her crap about it. And if she does have an abortion, she has to deal with all the hassle of that, too, because folks like you, of course, have gone out of your way to make it a hassle, which I appreciate. Thank you.
Every moment of that process, she has to be thinking of me, and how I’ve forced all of this on her — exercised my ability to bend her life away from what it was to what I’ve made of it. Me exercising my control.
I gotta tell you, it feels awesome.
But! You know what would feel even more awesome? The knowledge that, if you get your way and abortion is outlawed even in cases of rape, that my control of her will continue through all the rest of her life.
You mean if the people get their way. I am not a control freak like you and dictatorial governments. It will take the people to make that decision, not me. I thoroughly support that at the State level where it consitutionally belongs. And, by the way, whether you get her pregnant or not, she will remember the horror of you the rest of her life. Abortions will not eliminate that memory.
First, because she’ll have no legal choice about whether to have the baby I put in her — sorry, dearie, you have no control at all! You have to have it! That’s nine months of having your body warp and twist and change because I decided that you needed a little lesson on who’s actually running the show. That’s sweet.
She will have the legal choice the people give her. That is rule of law. The only show you run is your own.
Once the baby’s born, the woman will have to decide whether to keep it. Here’s an interesting fact: Of the women who have gotten pregnant from rape who give birth to that baby, most keep the baby, by a ratio of about five to one. So my ability to change the life of the woman just keeps growing, doesn’t it? From the rape, to the nine months of the pregnancy, to the rest of her life dealing with the child I raped into her. Of course, she could put the kid up for adoption, but that’s its own bundle of issues, isn’t it? And even then, she’s dealing with the choices I made for her, when I exercised my control over her life.
Best of all, I get to do all that without much consequence! Oh, sure, theoretically I can get charged with rape and go to prison for it. But you know what? For every hundred men who rape, only three go to prison. Those are pretty good odds for me, especially since — again! — folks like you like to muddy up the issue saying things like “forcible rape.” Keep doing that! It’s working out great for me.
Yes, it's her decision. Just as we all have to decide how we deal with the horrors that crap like you impose on us. If she keeps the child and loves it, it may turn out a blessing and its own joy--one which you will not experience. Like all pitiful control freaks, from individuals to governments, the savor of control is sweeter than life.
As for the kid, well, oddly enough, most women I rape want nothing to do with me afterward, so it’s not like I will have to worry about child support or any other sort of responsibility… unless of course I decide that I haven’t taught that woman a big enough lesson about who’s really in control of her life. Did you know that 31 states in this country don’t keep rapists from seeking custody or visitation rights? How great is that? That’s just one more thing she has to worry about — me crawling out of the woodwork to remind her of what I did, and am continuing to do, to her life.
Look how much control you want to give me over that woman! I really can’t thank you enough for it. It warms my heart to know no matter how much I rape, or how many women I impregnate through my non-consensual sexual battery, you have my back, when it comes to reminding every woman I humiliate who is actually the boss of her. It’s me! It’s always been me! You’ll make sure it’ll always be me. You’ll see to that.
I am totally voting for you this election.
Yours,
Just Another Rapist.
Of course you won't have to "worry" about the kid. Scum like you worry only about yourself. You don't have the ability to freely associate with others, to have the joy of consentual social or personal intercourse. Like a dictator, or dictatorial government, you must suppress free association and control all aspects of anything or anyone you touch. As a "conservative" who wishes to "conserve" the constitutional freedoms of our federal republic, I wish you, and the Federal government would let us decide about our "reproductive rights."
P.S.: I love it when you say that you “stand for innocent life” when it comes to denying abortions in cases of rape! It implicitly suggests that the women I rape are in some way complicit in and guilty of the crimes I commit on top of, and inside of, their bodies! Which works out perfectly for me. Keep it up!
More twisting of words. It suggests nothing of the sort . . . unless you want it to. You can control your own words, but not mine. Everyone is innocent here except you and a government that runs roughshod over the Constitution, and uses verbiage such as yours to justify it.
Hybrid Mode
