St. Augustine of Hippo said that parts of the Bible intended to be metaphors should not be taken literally. I believe he pointed out the Book of Genesis as an example of this. Creationists might want to look at Saint Augustine and follow his example.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be insulting or anything, I just have little patience for religious stuff.Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59
No, no, no... {sigh}
I'm not one of those "creationists" trying to sneak the Bible into classrooms under the guise of science. I'm highlighting out how silly they are, by pointing out that there is no inherent conflict between the Bible, or at least the Creation story, and hard science that does have a basis in fact.... if one can put aside the whole literal interpretation thing. I'm not "special pleading" for anything.
Geez.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
... back to the Council of Nicaea, and the then Roman Emperor, and patrom of the Christian faith, Constantine, who would certainly have found it uncomfotable to establish a Roman Church that opposed monarchs ... or so one would assume.There is a specific passage in the New Testament where Christians are told to 'fear God, honor the King'. One cannot worship them, as that would be heresy, but a good Christian is obligated to obey the current monarch unless they tell you to do something contrary to the law of God.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
Jesus is known as 'King of Kings', not 'King of Presidents'. And the Gospels were written long before Constantine was even born. Even scientists will tell you this.... back to the Council of Nicaea, and the then Roman Emperor, and patrom of the Christian faith, Constantine, who would certainly have found it uncomfotable to establish a Roman Church that opposed monarchs ... or so one would assume.
So What? that just means nearly everyone lived in a monarchy back then, not that Jesus supported monarchy.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Indeed, some think the church is under the power of the Demiurge.
Americans have had enough of glitz and roar . . Foreboding has deepened, and spiritual currents have darkened . . .
THE FOURTH TURNING IS AT HAND.
See T4T, p. 253.
From the best information I can gather, Jesus had the title 'King of Kings' bestowed upon him by the same folks who wanted to validate their right to rule. This seems more to my point than yours.Jesus is known as 'King of Kings', not 'King of Presidents'. And the Gospels were written long before Constantine was even born. Even scientists will tell you this.... back to the Council of Nicaea, and the then Roman Emperor, and patron of the Christian faith, Constantine, who would certainly have found it uncomfortable to establish a Roman Church that opposed monarchs ... or so one would assume.
Regarding the Gospels, none of which was written by a person alive at the time Jesus was preaching: I fail to see what this says about anything. Many so called Gospels were written, and most were conveniently excluded from the list of accepted texts. Some of the exclusions are obviously at odds with those that were accepted, though no one can say which if any are accurate.
In short, the entire basis of Western Christianity, as opposed to the orthodox variety, rests on a compendium of determinations made by political agents in the 4th and 5th centuries. It's not without notice that Jesus is not considered divine by the orthodox churches, yet this is the central tenet of the western church ... and justification for the divine right of kings, I might add.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 09-11-2007 at 08:48 AM.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
President Bush's speech tonight
The text of the President's speech tonight has leaked. It is, from our point of view (and from the point of view of the nation), critical. He will say that Iraqi leaders want "an enduring relationship with America," including some (not as many) American troops, and he will add:
"Whatever political party you belong to, whatever your position on Iraq, we should be able to agree that America has a vital interest in preventing chaos and providing hope in the Middle East. . .
"Let us come together on a policy of strength in the Middle East."
There you have it. Our destiny is to dominate the Middle East, he says, and for this, we should be willing to make an endless (albeit slightly smaller) investment. And we should unite behind this goal, as we did in the Second World War.
I have, as you all know, many differences with President Bush, but I appreciate him saying what he really thinks and putting the issue so clearly.
A long-term attempt to dominate the Middle East will, in my opinion, fail, and destroy the United States as we know it. This is the moment of decision, which will continue at least through the next election.
What does everyone else think?
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Damning with faint praise:
This has been an explicit goal of the US regime since at least Eisenhower. The fact that Bush has taken six years to officially acknowledge what he's been doing is hardly a point in his favor.
Yes we did!
I think that if we try to force democracy on the Middle East at the point of a gun (or the tip of a MOAB), we shall give democracy itself a bad name, and ultimately drive much of the world into the waiting arms of Red China.
I do support defending ourselves against whatever threat may cross our path, nor do I believe we owe the rest of the world any explanation for doing so. However if we really believe it is our destiny to spread democracy to the rest of the globe, we need to demostrate clearly that our way of life is superior to totalitarianism... we have to be seen as the Good Guys.
Last edited by Roadbldr '59; 09-13-2007 at 11:01 PM.
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King
I think he's playing smart politics, given his diminished popularity. There are an awful lot of people in the US that believe the oil in the M.E. is ours by right, and he's egging them on. If the Dems give him a response that is not hostile, he'll play this for a good run. I don't think it gets him through the elections, though. All he's working on now is survival, and maybe survival is enough.
Long term, I don't see a real impact that's any worse than our current straits. Most of the M.E. is pretty hostile to us already and I can't see us making any new friends there any time soon.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
But that will happen to some extent anyway. We urged the rest of the world to adopt democracy, but that doesn't mean it will succeed everywhere. Places that were being artificially kept oppressed counced back quickly to become successful democracies, as in Eastern Europe, isolated parts of Latin America, and some of South and Southeast Asia. Places where the culture manifestly interferes with rule-of-law, the representative principle, or transparency in government... will not succeed in having a functional democratic government no matter what happens.
Examples: Somalia, in its present form, is not capable of democracy, because there are too many armed factions that can disrupt any government. The grossly unbalanced and unfree economic structures of much of Latin America preclude the Jeffersonian mindset in most citizens. (Marxism recurs periodically there not because of the machinations of the dead and buried Comintern, but because Marxism looks a lot more relevant when the populace is visibly "immiserated". That doesn't mean Marxism works, as Chavez is busy demonstrating.) Tribal cultures have grave difficulty acknowledging the legitimacy of government leaders from other tribes. And so on.
Since America is, and always has been, the world champion of republican government, these places will be less receptive to our advice regarding ma'at, the proper ordering of society. So-called "Red" China now represents authoritarian capitalist nationalism in its unflavored version, without the philosophical spices of Naziism or communism or fascism. China's simply out for China, and makes no bones about it. From the "realist" Joe Dictator's perspective, this is a lot better than the "hypocritical" American position.
The real problem is that America is once again seen as being more out for its own interests and not giving a damn about the little people getting squashed. America is at its best whenever we set aside immediate profits to establish longer-term bonds with populations worldwide. Teddy Roosevelt arranging the first major union-management negotiations in the world during the 1902 coal strike; Wilson's Fourteen Points; The Atlantic Charter; the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps; "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"... these are a few of the things that gave America a positive name worldwide. We are respected and command leadership whenever we live up to the ideals we espouse (even if they have limited applicability at the moment). That's our advantage over China, because China doesn't have any ideals left - it abandoned Communist purity and has nothing to replace it but a nationalism irrelevant to any other nation. China is a mercenary nation today. That can buy you much, but as the song says, "money can't buy you love". We can't buy world power either... but we can earn it.
'81, 30/70 X/Millie, trying to live in both Red and Blue America... "Catfish 'n Cod"
Élan Vital
I think the Middle Southern Potion of Eurasia as extremely unimportant for the Future of Our Commercial Republic. In fact, the entire landmass is not that much of a deal for Our Commercial Republic.
To secure petroleum at this late date is the like of securing mast pines and pine tar in 1866 or the supply of whale oil at that date. Most of the Eurasian petroleum goes to other Eurasians, if they are not militarily interested in securing that supply and would rather purchase it from their fellow Eurasians (be they Rooskies or Vikings or Persians) it is not of vital importance to the demi-hemisphere in which we dwell.
It is not just the Bounaparte of Crawford that dreams Eurasian dreams, the Democrat Party is filled with worthies who would reduce our Iraki exposure so that we might progress in some other portion of Eurasia as yet untouched such as Media or return to the site of past Reform such as the Serbian province of Kosova. Romance is still in the 3T air and even the stench of Mesopotamia hasn't entirely dimmed the gleam in the Progressive eye when it gazes at Eurasians still aliive and their domestic livestock still attended. On to Tehran! On to Pristina! On to Waziristan! On to Ankara! On! ON!
We have Eurasian miles to go before we sleep.
And more Carrhae meetings yet to keep.
That our absence from Eurasia for some time might slowly lead to less disorder. And, the Eurasian hope for that retirement might be something to consider when and if "everything is on the table" (even an irenic policy toward the people on the land in Eurasia. It takes strength to open the door and take one's leave after "Time, Gentlemen" has been anounced. We have been too long besotted with Eurasian soporifics, it's time to stagger home.
Democracy is one of the mechanisms that supports a free society. Making it an end in itself is to risk confusing an empty form with the fact. Here's what I would have done in Iraq, had my opinion been asked in detail.
Wel, first, I would have used the armed services and not the National Guard. That would have spared us the ludicrous sight of the Guard fighting a foreign war while the armed services tied to do rescue work during a hurricane. When did they change places?
1) Had in hand a set of laws that were easy to understand, clear in application, and that dealt with such things as theft and murder, not headscarfs or the price of cabbages.
2) Had enough people in Iraq - local or otherwise - to enforce those few and simple laws - and enough judges (American. Sorry) to try the cases and settle disputes. Strict supervision on the cops; total transparency on the prisons.
Now the Iraqis have more or less some degree of physical security. Then, very, very quickly -
3) Get the infrastructure up and running. The life support system. Water, electricity, hospitals. Put a lot of troop strength into guarding those. Markets and business, mosques, etc - let them continue without overt interference. Go after the people who commit overt acts. If they say so-and-so planned the acts and gave them their orders, then pick up so-and-so.
A friend who is very far to the left stopped me right there and said "In other words, the Marshall Plan."
IF so, it's good to know great and small minds can think alike. Maybe we should send a copy of it to The Decider. Or his successor.
Or - for that matter - some accounts of how the Roman proconsuls ran things in the provinces under Li'l Augie - I mean Caesar Augustus.
How to spot a shill, by John Michael Greer: "What you watch for is (a) a brand new commenter who (b) has nothing to say about the topic under discussion but (c) trots out a smoothly written opinion piece that (d) hits all the standard talking points currently being used by a specific political or corporate interest, while (e) avoiding any other points anyone else has made on that subject."
"If the shoe fits..." The Grey Badger.
Getting rid of the Baathists (sp?) was stupid. I'd have left them in power at least until the place was stabilized, then weeded out the Saadam supporters as we went along. In occupying both Japan and Germany we relied on the resident political and administrative infrastructure to maintain order and facilitate the implementation of the "new order of things"
Our insistance that other parts of the world adopt western democracy as we understand it is really arrogant and, I think, destined to fail. the East and the Middle East do not have their roots in Greece and Classical Western thought. It seems foolish to expect them to throw out all their history to adopt what amounts to an alien system. What's wrong with letting them develop their own systems.
Kaiser Wilhelm II was negotiating strikes in 1889, Wilson's hatred of monarchy makes him a marred man (though I do think the 14 Points were a good idea), the rest is good.
By the way, democracy works best when coupled with monarchy, as they do tend to complement one another. Monarchy also preserves a nation's ties with its past better than a republic does.
Democracy?
I'm working on Wilson now. Turns out he did not hate monarchy, and indeed, Lansing, his SecState, sounded much more like Bush than he does talking about democracy and peace.
But meanwhile. .. I am seriously beginning to wonder if democracy only really thrives in opposition to something else. The United States took its principles so much more seriously during the first 35-40 years of my life, when we had just beaten Fascism and had to compete with Communism, than we do now. Perhaps any hegemonic system, even democracy, simply becomes an excuse for hubris. That's what the Athenians apparently discovered. Maybe the world is a family, and for some of us to act out democratic impulses, others must take care of the dictatorial ones.
David Kaiser '47
My blog: History Unfolding
My book: The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy
Facing Reality
All this suggests that we are inching closer to finally facing reality, but we still have a long way to go. The comment made about democracy perhaps being an excuse for hubris is closer to being right on than it sounds. The ultimate hubris tends to lie in the corporate leaders who have gotten most of the government in bed with them, which, IMO, has led to a far more severe hubris than that of the GI's which the Boomers so viciously challenged during the 1960's. I have mentioned Boomer hubris on this forum before.
Dreamers and couch potatoes will be, if they have not already been, called back to the real world. Just as aging Boomers were called to it in the 1980's when the AIDS scare and runaway inflation made their youth-era lifestyles unsustainable. Personal and sexual gratification was replaced by material and financial gratification. The new drug of choice was credit. They were called to the world where money must be earned and bills paid. Those who did not succeed in joing the yuppie class became discouraged by the rate of pay they're receiving for their hours of toil. And this is still happening. What is remarkable is when Tony Snow decides to leave his government post because he can't support his family on a government paycheck. Yet today you have to really be in the know to make it big in the private sector. Someone here recently mentioned how the old play "How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying" has become obsolete.
We are now in a world where thankless bosses and clients will only rub salt in the wounds of those who feel used and abused. And more often than not complaining to such people won't do any good. In the past two decades there has been relatively few protests over such situation. Although Jimmy Carter got in trouble for using the term "malaise" to describe certain conditions, it seems as though we are in one now, espcially where work matters are concerned, and most of the public seems to have resigned itself that the best approach is to get on with the job, while looking after number one. It's a tough world, and generosity of spirit is not always rewarded.
Well put. I agree wholeheartedly.
Anti-corporate people should just be more frugal with their money. Then most of their problems.
I looooove this:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/09/10...val/index.html
I predicted it; it's happening.
Big dental bills coming too!
It doesn't surprise me either.
What really makes me cringe is thinking about tounge jewelry. Consider all the tooth enamel that some people have lost scince the 'punk era' began.
Actually, the biggest issue with anything bad in the mouth is the presence of massive nerve paths and the close proximity to the brain. There are many cases where an abscessed tooth has lead to a brain infection followed rather soon by death. I assume that some of the facial piercings can trigger similar issues.
Apparently, nose piercings are less problematic, since that is a long standing practice in some cultures. if people were dying by the thousands, it would have been noticed.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.
And this inherently proves why the punk music lifestyle is bad for your health.
No, the Beatles didn't drive Manson over the edge
Well, then I guess that I'm living proof that enjoying punk is not harmful. Not only did I go to punk clubs on a regular basis during the grunge era of the early 90's, but coming home from work tonight, I was listening to the Sex Pistols and then Devo on CD's. I managed to go through life from the 70's until today without body piercings or tatoos infesting my physical frame. There's nothing with the music, if an individual makes choices that are difficult or impossible to reverse, it's not the music's fault.
Last edited by herbal tee; 09-18-2007 at 10:19 PM.
