Originally Posted by JDG 66

What will progressives do if other groups use the same rigorous tactics the Jihadis use, eh?

You could always try it. This 4T has been kind of boring so far. Seriously, I was promised an epic bloodbath . . . but so far conservatives are just a bunch of wussy cry-babies. Say what you will about the rebels who fired on Ft. Sumter, but at least they knew how to throw a tantrum. Today's reactionaries are just pathetic by comparison.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

You could always try it. This 4T has been kind of boring so far. Seriously, I was promised an epic bloodbath . . . but so far conservatives are just a bunch of wussy cry-babies. Say what you will about the rebels who fired on Ft. Sumter, but at least they knew how to throw a tantrum. Today's reactionaries are just pathetic by comparison.

Never forget the Victorian crisis! There was some fighting in a distant colony and the people vigorously debated important topics like... evolution.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Good chance this one was Iranian.

What's the motive? Why this particular consulate attachment?

Stevens and his crew had just shown up in Lebanon, is that coincidence? The attackers seem to have known the movements of the victims before and after the attack, so that kind of implies an intention to target them.

Unless Iran is ready for a fight, that would have been a pretty bad strategic decision.

Originally Posted by JDFP

What I'm saying is that you can't really refer to yourself as a specific follower of a religious teaching (i.e. calling yourself Catholic and/or Baptist, Methodist, etc.) if you don't ascribe to the actual dogmatic teachings. It's a vegetarian who loves bacon otherwise.

j.p.

Maybe; I see your point. But I doubt it. Adhering to the all-too-human actual dogmatic teachings are not what it means to be a Catholic or Baptist, etc, it seems to me. It is more the relationship with the deity that makes you such. In other words, church authorities cannot dictate to the followers of their religion what to believe, although they try. There are many Catholics who question church teachings of various kinds; or else they vary from them in practice perhaps more than they might wish. A Christian is "a follower of Jesus." I don't think it matters so much which denomination of follower you are-- which church you happen to attend. A "church" is simply a community of followers; that's what the word means. There are many "flavors" of vegetarian too. I pay attention to and follow many of its tenets, but I also eat meat once in a while. If the church excluded "sinners" it would have no members. Which I think answers this question too:

Do you really have a belief that something is wrong if you are complicit with it?

You certainly can.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not directly. He assumed that I was a Muslim and proceeded to insult me from there. It was quite comical.
I'd like to propose another one ... "Everyone Offend a Muslim Extremist Day."

Maybe that could be part of National Brotherhood Week.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe; I see your point. But I doubt it. Adhering to the all-too-human actual dogmatic teachings are not what is means to be a Catholic or Baptist, etc, it seems to me. It is more the relationship with the deity that makes you such. In other words, church authorities cannot dictate to the followers of their religion what to believe, although they try. There are many Catholics who question church teachings of various kinds; or else they vary from them in practice perhaps more than they might wish. A Christian is "a follower of Jesus." I don't think it matters so much which denomination of follower you are-- which church you happen to attend. A "church" is simply a community of followers; that's what the word means. There are many "flavors" of vegetarian too. I pay attention to and follow many of its tenets, but I also eat meat once in a while. If the church excluded "sinners" it would have no members. Which I think answers this question too:

I've seen the Old Testament described as a merger of two traditions. Allegedly there was a rural tradition focused on heroic tales with moral meaning, and an urban tradition centered on rules and rituals that had to be followed. Even back when I was a practicing Catholic, I was more interested in Jesus the teller of parables and practitioner of love than the Church as a maker of rules and dispenser of hell fire.

The Church has been many things in many eras. Yet, they pretend that Truth is eternal, that God, being perfect, never changes. There are disconnects that seem obvious to a child of the Enlightenment, where there has been true change. There are lots of Catholics practicing birth control, and lots of Catholics dubious about the special place the Church males give to males.

Anyway, Jesus told some neat stories. I have no argument with him as I do with his Father.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

What's the motive? Why this particular consulate attachment?

Stevens and his crew had just shown up in Lebanon, is that coincidence? The attackers seem to have known the movements of the victims before and after the attack, so that kind of implies an intention to target them.

Unless Iran is ready for a fight, that would have been a pretty bad strategic decision.

Stevens was a poorly secured target in an unstable nation. Thus he made a great target.

Iran believes it will be attacked soon now and it very well might happen. An operation like this does a few things for them. First it provides them with intel. Note that while the embassy was burned, a lot of files were carefully removed before they were destroyed (angry mobs don't do this). Second it pulls our attention and resources to the other side of the region. Third it serves as good rabble-rousing. This has spread a great deal of anger over the region aimed at the United States. Just imagine what happens now if the United States openly assists in an attack against Iran. The Soviets used to call this sort of thing maskirovka (concleament). The idea being that before you go to war you use deception to render an alliance ineffective.

If it was Iran and evidence is found making that link, it could backfire big time.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

One thing to consider about the Rasmussen poll: it's a 3-day tracking poll, and as a result covers the most recent period of any poll in the RCP average. The Gallup tracking poll is a 7-day average, which still includes the DNC and its immediate aftermath. Rasmussen had a big Obama lead over the weekend. Watch and see if Obama's numbers don't come down once the older polls drop out.

Just to show that I was right: Obama's lead in the Gallup tracking poll is now 3 points, down from 7 earlier this week.

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

What's the motive? Why this particular consulate attachment?

Stevens and his crew had just shown up in Lebanon, is that coincidence? The attackers seem to have known the movements of the victims before and after the attack, so that kind of implies an intention to target them.

Unless Iran is ready for a fight, that would have been a pretty bad strategic decision.

10:1 odds are it was Al Qaeda and/or affiliated groups.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

10:1 odds are it was Al Qaeda and/or affiliated groups.

There is no such organization as "Al-Qaeda", anymore, just tiny home-spun terrorist cells who call themselves "Al-Qaeda" because it makes them look like hot stuff.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Eh, I'm with JP on this one.
If someone tells you that some things are morally "wrong" (whether it's killing animals to eat them or committing "sins,") and you do them anyway, you're pretty much admitting that you don't think they're wrong. People who really believe that something is wrong don't do it.

People who know that killing is wrong (or at least recognize that it is widely and intensely disparaged) and still kill either try to conceal their involvement or conceal the crime -- or think that they will get away with it.

Originally Posted by B Butler

I've seen the Old Testament described as a merger of two traditions. Allegedly there was a rural tradition focused on heroic tales with moral meaning, and an urban tradition centered on rules and rituals that had to be followed. Even back when I was a practicing Catholic, I was more interested in Jesus the teller of parables and practitioner of love than the Church as a maker of rules and dispenser of hell fire.

Me too.

The Church has been many things in many eras. Yet, they pretend that Truth is eternal, that God, being perfect, never changes. There are disconnects that seem obvious to a child of the Enlightenment, where there has been true change. There are lots of Catholics practicing birth control, and lots of Catholics dubious about the special place the Church males give to males.

Anyway, Jesus told some neat stories. I have no argument with him as I do with his Father.

There is the eternal Truth aspect of God, for sure. There is also what changes, develops and evolves and/or decays. The Sun and Moon are mythic symbols of this duality. All of it is divine, in my view. Where I differ from many Churches, is the notion that their authorities have this Truth nailed down into their rules and dogmas, and that all believers should follow them in order to be true to their faith, rather than finding the truth for themselves as best they can, with the church's help and counsel. Just because there may be eternal Truth, does not annoint some earthling with the power of pronouncing it infallibly to all church members, though the Pope has (rather arrogantly) assumed that role for himself.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Eh, I'm with JP on this one.
If someone tells you that some things are morally "wrong" (whether it's killing animals to eat them or committing "sins,") and you do them anyway, you're pretty much admitting that you don't think they're wrong. People who really believe that something is wrong don't do it.

We all fall short of the glory of God. We are all sinners. We miss the mark and make mistakes.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Just to show that I was right: Obama's lead in the Gallup tracking poll is now 3 points, down from 7 earlier this week.

The average has never been higher than about 3, according to Real Clear Politics, in which older polls drop out of the average.

It is possible for people to do what they believe is wrong. There is such a thing as a conflict of motives.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Maybe; I see your point. But I doubt it. Adhering to the all-too-human actual dogmatic teachings are not what is means to be a Catholic or Baptist, etc, it seems to me. It is more the relationship with the deity that makes you such.

Someone could live in a vacuum from others in civilization - say being locked away somewhere with no human interaction. This person could have an inherent sense of something "Greater" than themselves - i.e. a "God". This person who has never read scripture or heard about Christ could still have a relationship to God intrinsically. Likewise, someone who has a Bible but has never been in a society in which churches or cathedrals or religion is allowed in any capacity - and in fact is prosecuted - could still decide for themselves from what they've read they rather dig this Jesus of Nazareth and decide to follow the teachings of Christ in their life. This person is apart from religious institutions - but I'd say this person is still a Christian all the same if they follow the precepts of what they've read from the teachings of Christ.

However, to call yourself a Catholic or another religious identity is to follow specific precepts of understanding from scripture and from Tradition. To be a Christian is not the same as to be a Catholic or a Baptist or a Mormon. Having a relationship with Christ in following the teachings of Christ can certainly lead someone to be a Christian. However, this is not the same as being a Catholic or another religious affiliation. They are not one and the same.

I'm not an Islamic scholar - but I'd step out on a limb and say that this would probably follow from Shiite and Sunni as well in addition to distinctions between Therevada/Mahayana/Hinayana Buddhism. Again, I'm not a scholar on these - this is just a thought I'm having and if I'm wrong please point it out to me.

Here's something I've pondered that I think would be a good discussion point. There are certainly cultural elements to all religious backgrounds whether Catholic or Jewish or other. I would argue that just because you belong to a cultural background of a specific faith it doesn't make you a religious member of that faith unless you practice the precepts of the faith itself. It's just my opinion of course - I'm not trying to start any arguments. In fact, I welcome thoughts on it. You may be born into a Catholic or Jewish tradition and be culturally linked to that faith for life - but, even so, you still have to make a point to follow the faith actively.

Someone may have been born into a Catholic family and may have been raised culturally Catholic - does this define him/her as being a Catholic? Someone may have been born from a Jewish mother and be culturally Jewish - but if said person converts to Christianity and say becomes a Baptist - is this person still a Jew apart from cultural connectivity? Just some thoughts to ponder.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

In other words, church authorities cannot dictate to the followers of their religion what to believe, although they try.

Of course they can. Religious institutions cannot dictate whether you inherently have a relationship, in your own way, with Christ. However, they can dictate the precepts (dogmatic and doctrinal) of their own faith teaching - which is the summation of the religious understanding itself.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are many Catholics who question church teachings of various kinds; or else they vary from them in practice perhaps more than they might wish. A Christian is "a follower of Jesus." I don't think it matters so much which denomination of follower you are-- which church you happen to attend. A "church" is simply a community of followers; that's what the word means.

Right. Someone can certainly affiliate themselves as being a Christian based on following the teachings of Christ. Where it gets interesting is this: What is it to truly follow these teachings? What did Jesus mean when He said eat my flesh and drink my blood? What did Christ mean when He said you must be born again? It's the interpretation that spearheads the distinctions here. I have no qualms about people using their own minds to make a determination about how they interpret the teachings of their faith - but the Oreo cream-center that glues your faith together is in how you choose to interpret what you're reading. Whereas Protestants see it as Sola Scriptura - Catholics see it as a living and Sacred Tradition.

To say you are a Christian - it does matter on how you interpret things - because this will guide how you live these teachings. In living apart from a religious community you can certainly still claim yourself as a Christian and you may have a relationship with Christ (I'm not denying this at all) - but apart from hermeneutics and a history of living the Tradition are you really following the teachings of Christ as He deemed? This is where religious communities come into play.

Someone can be a cultural Catholic - this does not make one a Catholic in a religious sense if you do not subscribe to the teachings of the faith.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are many "flavors" of vegetarian too. I pay attention to and follow many of its tenets, but I also eat meat once in a while. If the church excluded "sinners" it would have no members. Which I think answers this question too:

You certainly can.

I agree regarding sinners. However, there is a difference between doing something wrong and doing something wrong when you have a knowledge (and I'd argue some things this is inherent without ever having to learn from a book) that it is wrong to do said things.

As far as "You certainly can" comment - that's called hypocrisy.

j.p.

Originally Posted by The Rani

And, in my view, hypocrisy indicates a lack of a true "belief."

I agree with you. If you truly believe something you follow it through your actions (and inaction is just as important).

j.p.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Im just dying to know how the ambassador to Libya is "maintaining my right to freedom of speech." I was unaware that Libya posed such a significant threat to the bill of rights.

I realize that this may be news to a numb skull like yourself, but the world is highly complex and interlinked particularly in regard to religion. One would think that would be obvious given how widespread the protests have been against the film.

One way to avoid wars is to practice diplomacy. The art of diplomacy has been practiced for hundreds of years and it is not unusual for a nation's diplomacy corps to take casualties in the line of their duties for their countries.

Maybe take you head out of your rear and learn something about the real world?

Originally Posted by JohnMc82

Gasp! How dare you bring up such facts? Have you no respect?

But yeah... I share your frustration with the authoritarian left right now.

If you think that bringing up "facts" cleanses you of any disrespect , you clearly are highly representative of what use to be know as an Ugly American.

I really don't get how you all can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Sure you can get all sanctimonious of your right to free speech (that others provide to you) but why can't you also denounce some douche bag's bigoted propaganda. Brian's sew-saw metaphor hits the nail on the head - if one denounces the douche bag's bigotry then one just has to be against free speech. It's completely idiotic.

Sometimes I wonder if the problems Xers have is less about their supposed sufferings at the hands of others and more of just being inherently unable to navigate in the real world with all its complexities. And they claim you all are the pragmatic ones - from what I've observed here, I have to say that's pure horseshit.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

Well, no. But then, Christian tradition doesn't have a recorded incident where Jesus married a 9-year old girl. Oddly enough, the "smear" you bolded is actually true.

That is a history that took place closer to 2,000 rather than just a 1,000 years ago of very different cultures. The purpose of the film was not to be an informative piece for the Discovery Channel; it was very purposefully done to denigrate, degrade, disrespect and likely incite over a billion people. It's bigotry at its worse and it surprises me that you are one of the ones who can't walk and chew gum at the same time.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

2004 just called. The Republicans want their talking points back.

Just as it is with the freedom of speech, people can abuse the FACT that other families have sent their kids into harms way (and, I'll include the intelligent services and diplomatic corps as well as military) so that folks like you can safely sit there scratching your nuts while pontificating on how it is just peachy fine for a douche bag's bigotry to set up the cover for our enemies to take out one of our own. I agree with you that the Bush Administration abused that FACT for their own flawed purposes. Just know if in person you accused me of doing that, I'm pretty sure you'd still be able to pontificate but I doubt you'd have anything left to scratch.

Not to wish you any harm, but I do sometimes wish chicken crusaders could experience coming under fire in a foreign land for just an hour or so. After you finish shitting your pants, I'm pretty sure your pontificating would be completely different - with or without nuts.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Again ...
I'm not talking about the "glory of God."
I'm talking about the beliefs of an individual.

The context of the discussion was whether JP is right that you are not a Catholic if you don't do what their teachings say.

Originally Posted by JDFP

Here's something I've pondered that I think would be a good discussion point. There are certainly cultural elements to all religious backgrounds whether Catholic or Jewish or other. I would argue that just because you belong to a cultural background of a specific faith it doesn't make you a religious member of that faith unless you practice the precepts of the faith itself. It's just my opinion of course - I'm not trying to start any arguments. In fact, I welcome thoughts on it. You may be born into a Catholic or Jewish tradition and be culturally linked to that faith for life - but, even so, you still have to make a point to follow the faith actively.

"Have to" or not, many people don't, yet are still Catholics and have not been excommunicated. So it's just your opinion that people who don't follow all the teachings of Catholicism are not Catholics.

Someone may have been born into a Catholic family and may have been raised culturally Catholic - does this define him/her as being a Catholic? Someone may have been born from a Jewish mother and be culturally Jewish - but if said person converts to Christianity and say becomes a Baptist - is this person still a Jew apart from cultural connectivity? Just some thoughts to ponder.

Of course they can. Religious institutions cannot dictate whether you inherently have a relationship, in your own way, with Christ. However, they can dictate the precepts (dogmatic and doctrinal) of their own faith teaching - which is the summation of the religious understanding itself.

In a sense yes; they can put forth teachings. But there is no religious faith or church whose members in fact all follow all those teachings.

Right. Someone can certainly affiliate themselves as being a Christian based on following the teachings of Christ. Where it gets interesting is this: What is it to truly follow these teachings? What did Jesus mean when He said eat my flesh and drink my blood? What did Christ mean when He said you must be born again? It's the interpretation that spearheads the distinctions here. I have no qualms about people using their own minds to make a determination about how they interpret the teachings of their faith - but the Oreo cream-center that glues your faith together is in how you choose to interpret what you're reading. Whereas Protestants see it as Sola Scriptura - Catholics see it as a living and Sacred Tradition.

That's right; teachings are interpreted. The Rani's point about murder came to my mind. The commandments say Thou Shalt Not Kill, yet the church propounds just war theories. So what does "Thou Shalt Not Kill" really mean?

To say you are a Christian - it does matter on how you interpret things - because this will guide how you live these teachings. In living apart from a religious community you can certainly still claim yourself as a Christian and you may have a relationship with Christ (I'm not denying this at all) - but apart from hermeneutics and a history of living the Tradition are you really following the teachings of Christ as He deemed? This is where religious communities come into play.

I agree regarding sinners. However, there is a difference between doing something wrong and doing something wrong when you have a knowledge (and I'd argue some things this is inherent without ever having to learn from a book) that it is wrong to do said things.

As far as "You certainly can" comment - that's called hypocrisy.

j.p.

Or they just didn't live up to the teachings. That's where the Romans verse "we have all fallen short of the glory of God" comes in. Christianity says you need Jesus to bridge the gap. Or I would just say, realization of our essential divinity is needed.

You, Kinser, and The Rani all seem to have an exaggerated view of your own perfection, maybe so that you guys can look down on others who aren't as pure as you. Or if not, how do you justify your harsh opinion about those who deviate and can't live up to the highest standards you believe in? The religious right in particular has a blind spot about their own imperfections, but I noticed Kinser as a member of the atheist left has the same condition. I don't mean to be harsh; I have my blind spots too. A little humility works at times, is all I'm saying.

Some philosophers argue, and I tend to agree, that the teachings of Jesus were intended as something that could not be followed, but people encounter wisdom in the attempt to follow them.

I'm sure abortion is the main issue here. I tend to think there are good points on both sides of the debate, and that we should all just agree on using the abortion pill and let it go, instead of using this never-ending debate to score political points.

What amazes me is the abject stupidity of some Republican candidates and commentators like Krauthammer on this issue. They actually criticize the American embassy in Cairo for disavowing the film as insulting to Muslims just before the riots there. True, it did not stop the riots, but it was the right thing to say. Maybe it just didn't get enough press over there. And the administration did not "backtrack;" Hillary Clinton said the same thing just a day later. And both she and the president condemned in the harshest terms the violence of the rioters. That was correct too; there is no excuse for their behavior, especially in a city (Benghazi) that the USA helped to defend against tyranny and genocide. The Republicans try to score political points off this, but appear to have lost points instead.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

If it was Iran and evidence is found making that link, it could backfire big time.

How so? In the arab world? Is the UN going to hate on Iran any more than it already does? It's pretty low risk for Iran at this point.