Preaching Revolution

Wicky,

Calling BS is making a claim.  To say it is not is, once again, intellectually dishonest

Spiritual truth, however, is positively proven by subjective spiritual experience.  Objective explanations of that experiential spiritual reality, however, are subject to broad interpretation, none of which ever breach the cognitive divide between direct experience and indirect observation.  Only genuine spiritual apperception can cross that divide.

It is like a joke.  You either get it or you don’t.

You don’t get it.  You lack the experience.  Ipso facto.  Your interpretations are meaningless.

The religious do not owe you an explanation for their beliefs.  You are just insulting their sensibilities and no challenge at all.

You are obviously not a qualified psychiatrist nor even much of an informed layperson, so your diagnosis of insanity is totally without merit.  Merely your less than sane opinion.

If you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

You are not responding to much of what I am saying, and only cherry-picking parts you can reply to redundantly and without reflection.  No thinking going on here. No dialogue, just your calcified opinion.

I am going to just let you go.

Posted by WickyWoo on Apr 3, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Ti, is right here, Wicky.

You are mistaking narrative order for temporal order.  Not necessarily the same.

Tex, Woozy lost the debate, even in your tiny pea brain how would that constitute a “thrashing” ??????????

Calling BS is making a claim.  To say it is not is, once again, intellectually dishonest

Oh give me a break.

Calling BS is saying “prove it”.

You are mistaking narrative order for temporal order.  Not necessarily the same.

Read it again. It says God went from A to B to C to D and so on. It’s very specific. For another example it specifically talks about when plants and humans are created

GENESIS

1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 
1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 
1:13 And the evening and the morning were the third day. 

Humans are created 3 days later

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. 
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
1:29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. 
1:30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.  “To every beast ... I have given every green herb for meat”
1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. 

Now let’s go to version 2

2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 
2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. 
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul

Exact opposite order. It is EXTREMELY specific.

Woo defeated loony in the first debate he’s won since junior high.

Wicky,

Sorry to be so late in responding. 

Although I am in general agreement with the documentary hypothesis in the literary construction of the OT, in this particular case, and in the interest of intellectual honesty I can see no logical justification for your conclusions. 

Please show me where the verses in Gen. 2 are explicitly stated to be in chronological order.  I cannot find any such qualifiers.

For your delectation, I offer the following comparable narrative:

1. I ate some ice cream yesterday,

2.  And I bought that ice cream at the neighborhood store,

3.  And I rode my bicycle to the store.

What is the difference between the chronological order of these statements and their narrative order?  How does this relate to the differences between Genesis 1 and 2?

Please show me where the verses in Gen. 2 are explicitly stated to be in chronological order.  I cannot find any such qualifiers.

It’s in the bible

The bible is literally true

Questioning the perfection of its words is blasphemy

That’s what you’re required to believe as a Christian. No interpretation is allowed, otherwise you lack faith and are going to hell.

You’re doing exactly what i’m taling about. You’re attempting to apply rationality to the inherently and irreversibly irrational. Stop enabling lunatics.

That was quick.

Answer my questions please.

Any reading of any text requires interpretation.  One must interpret it within the context of one’s own world view at the very least.  Literalism is the irrational refuge of Fundamentalists.  Not all Christians are Fundamentalists.  It is irrational and intellectually dishonest for you to claim that no interpretation is allowed by Christians.

It is your rationality that is in question here.  I am not going to enable that.

Myths do not depend on rationality or empirical reason.  They are stories whose mythological meaning points beyond the supposed facts of the narrative.  Much like the theme of a poem or any fictional work of literature. 

It is an intrinsic psychological meaning of the mind’s place in the world to which they point, not an extrinsic empirical description of the physical world.

You don’t know your apples from your oranges.

Any reading of any text requires interpretation.  One must interpret it within the context of one’s own world view at the very least.  Literalism is the irrational refuge of Fundamentalists.  Not all Christians are Fundamentalists.  It is irrational and intellectually dishonest for you to claim that no interpretation is allowed by Christians.

Fundamentalism is the only kind of Abrahamic religion there can be. You believe you were given orders by the all powerful, all knowing, all seeing creator of the universe. Obedience without question is right in the manual. Why do you think they burn, torture and murder so many heretics that introduced facts that might counter them?

See above. If you do not believe without question, you lack faith, and are going to hell.

It is your rationality that is in question here.  I am not going to enable that.

Nice attempt at standard Republican/Fundy technique #34- Accuse your opponent of the crimes that you yourself are guilty of

Myths do not depend on rationality or empirical reason.  They are stories whose mythological meaning points beyond the supposed facts of the narrative.  Much like the theme of a poem or any fictional work of literature. 

They’re not a myth to the Christian.. They are literal truth that must be obeyed, again right in the handbook. 

You are trying to apply rationality and thought to a system that does everything it can to suppress them. 

At this point luminous, I know you’re a theist, so just admit it. No atheist would have hung on so long to the interpretation scam. You’re just an apologetic who managed to reconcile reality and delusion with careful selective reading and rationalization “well, that should be followed, but that’s a parable, and that I’ll just ignore”.

Woozy, you have plenty of your own irrationalities as I have discovered on other issues. That you would waste time throwing beeble quotes at each other is an indictment of you and let me reassure you that the right has no monopoly on irrationality, you are evidence galore of that. You two nuts need to wrap this up and get back to what Rand calls Objective Reality.

“At this point luminous, I know you’re a theist, so just admit it.”

Actually, Wicky, I’m a ‘sitter’.  Which means I practice mindfulness as taught by Siddhartha Gotama Shakyamuni, a human being.  This does not mean I am a strict believer in Buddhist Doctrine or the Buddha, but follow the Buddha’s injunction to examine the mind as a gold assayer examines a sample of ore.  With logic and reason and focused empirical observation, without preconceptions.

As far as Objective Reality, as Mikey puts it, I am inclined to the scientific method, rather than following the faux philosophical ranting of some neurotic Russian expatriate.

I believe there are some very good criticisms of monotheistic belief, but you are doing a disservice to that cause by clinging to irrational and intellectually dishonest arguments.

My conclusion is that you, like Mikey, suffer from one of the shortcomings of our post-Dewey educational system in that you have been trained in what to think without ever learning how to think.  You certainly have not internalized the elements of collegial and principled dialectic argument, nor have any inkling of what is required for productive and meaningful dialogue.

“Fundamentalism is the only kind of Abrahamic religion there can be”

If this is true then Quaker, Univeralist, Unitarian, Methodist, Catholic, Lutheran, Sufism, Conservative and Reformed Judaism, and the large majority of Christian, Jewish and Moslem sectarian groups are not Abrahamic religion.

How can this be?

How can fighting with bad logic ever overcome illogical belief?

Actually, Wicky, I’m a ‘sitter’.  Which means I practice mindfulness as taught by Siddhartha Gotama Shakyamuni, a human being.  This does not mean I am a strict believer in Buddhist Doctrine or the Buddha, but follow the Buddha’s injunction to examine the mind as a gold assayer examines a sample of ore.  With logic and reason and focused empirical observation, without preconceptions.

Good. Don’t apply your religion to one that is completely the opposite though. Perhaps if you did more research into the actual texts and structure of Abrahamic religions

As far as Objective Reality, as Mikey puts it, I am inclined to the scientific method, rather than following the faux philosophical ranting of some neurotic Russian expatriate.

Good

believe there are some very good criticisms of monotheistic belief, but you are doing a disservice to that cause by clinging to irrational and intellectually dishonest arguments.

Except I’m not the persons making them. I’m just holding people to the rules of the religion they claim to follow. Christianity is whatever the Bible says it is. I didn’t make the rules, but I won’t allow people to cherry pick it.

As a Buddhist, you abhore conflict and violence(one would hope, thanks to Richard Dawkins I’ve discovered there are militaristic Buddhist monks out there)

My conclusion is that you, like Mikey, suffer from one of the shortcomings of our post-Dewey educational system in that you have been trained in what to think without ever learning how to think.  You certainly have not internalized the elements of collegial and principled dialectic argument, nor have any inkling of what is required for productive and meaningful dialogue.

Sorry, I came from a theistic parent, and was the only open atheist that I knew until my mid teens. No one ever taught me what to think, all of my opinions came from my own research in jesuit libraries, reading multiple translations of the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormon etc, and debating pastors/priests etc. There weren’t exactly an abundance of atheist arguement materials at the library.

I spent my entire childhood in the library, and learned very little useful in school after 7th grade. I know all about arguement, but when you’re arguing a subject with stated, absolute rules, supposedly created by the perfect, all knowing creator of the universe, there’s not a lot of room for wiggle.

If this is true then Quaker, Univeralist, Unitarian, Methodist, Catholic,
Lutheran, Sufism, Conservative and Reformed Judaism, and the large majority
of Christian, Jewish and Moslem sectarian groups are not Abrahamic
religion.

How can this be?

Because they cherry pick, and edit out the parts they don’t like in order to make it more palatable to actual human beings, and not a bunch of sheepherders 5000 years ago who got off on denying themselves sex and killing each other

“Christianity is whatever the Bible says it is”

Absolutely not.  Christianity is what Christians say it is.  Christian Doctrine is only in relation to Biblical text.  Orthodox Christian Doctrine is determined more by the extra-biblical text of Enoch 2 and decisions of the Ecumenical Councils than from Biblical text.  The doctrinal decision against Arianism at the first Council at Nicaea was made by Constantine, who wasn’t even a Christian.  Sectarian differences are predicated on further parsing and rejection of these non-Biblical doctrinal positions.  You yourself made the point that much of Christian belief comes from syncrestic beliefs from other traditions.  Things like Easter (Aster) and bunny rabbits laying eggs.  Right?

Yes, there are something like Fundamentalist Buddhists, but you won’t learn much about them by reading Dawkins.  If you’d like to know about the issues involved and how trivial they are compared to Abrahamic Fundamentalism I suggest you read the linked book by the Dalai Lama

“Because they cherry pick, and edit out the parts they don’t like”

No, because they interpret them and give them weight in the context of Church Doctrine, or, in the case of the Society of Friends and Unitarian Universalists, leave interpretation up to the individual.

If they were truly cherry-picking, they would have long excised portions of text irrelevant to their doctrine, much as passages have been interpolated to support doctrine.  Indeed, many early Christian texts were excised and lost to history because of 2nd and 4th Century doctrinal disputes.  If ‘editing them out’ meant anything but weasel-worded rhetorical bullshit, they would not be there. They would have been edited out of the Bible.

Wicky,

You yourself are cherry-picking by only highlighting those passages that reflect exceptionalist doctrine or bloody-mindedness by characters in the story.  Consider them in context with the passages that reflect sublime wisdom and 10,000 years of human moral development.  Expand your understanding and stop clinging to your partisan prejudices. 

Just reading and taking what appeals to your assumptions and rejecting that which does not, does not mean you know how to think.

Thinking and principled argument takes rigorous training in logic and rhetoric. Mathematics too, if you want to be anything more than a pedantic rationalizer.

quote]Absolutely not.  Christianity is what Christians say it is.  Christian Doctrine is only in relation to Biblical text.

Did they create it? No

Did an all-powerful, all wise being create it(supposedly) in order to instruct his creations with the correct path? Yes

How dare they question a god that has specifically stated “Do what you’re told without question, or suffer”

Yes, there are something like Fundamentalist Buddhists, but you won’t learn much about them by reading Dawkins.  If you’d like to know about the issues involved and how trivial they are compared to Abrahamic Fundamentalism I suggest you read the linked book by the Dalai Lama

But I can by watching the interviews with them on one of his TV shows. And given that you love Mr.Lama so much, I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but he’s as bad as any Christian “Peace, Love, and CIA training grounds for my people to learn guerilla tactics to fight the CHinese” to restore a theocracy that when it came to oppressing and doing horrible things to the people in many ways rivaled the Taliban.

And wouldn’t a fundamentalist Buddhist be closer to some of those monks that live in incredible seclusion, partially to lower the risk of killing or harming anything?

No, because they interpret them and give them weight in the context of Church Doctrine, or, in the case of the Society of Friends and Unitarian Universalists, leave interpretation up to the individual.

No, they form sects because there’s pissing contests among who gets to wear the big pants in the family, whatever those little spats may be. It doesn’t matter what their sect is, as long as they’re “Christians”, they must obey what their supposed founder and deity supposedly said, as it is the supposedly direct word from an all powerful, all knowing being who cannot be wrong, despite the fact that he couldn’t make his creation perfectly the first time, and sadistic enough to make things that displease him for the sole purpose of punishing them.

If they were truly cherry-picking, they would have long excised portions of text irrelevant to their doctrine, much as passages have been interpolated to support doctrine.  Indeed, many early Christian texts were excised and lost to history because of 2nd and 4th Century doctrinal disputes.  If ‘editing them out’ meant anything but weasel-worded rhetorical bullshit, they would not be there. They would have been edited out of the Bible.

Are you talking about the several hundred “lost gospels”? The Council of Nycea did act as a wonderful editorial board didn’t they? They did an especially good job at then forging external documents like doctoring the works of Flavius Josephus to include mentions of Jesus (forgetting he was born way too late for that).

By the time people started cherry picking the bible (or even that the masses could start to read the thing themselves to perform the cherry picking) it was 1500+ years later, far too late to do any major changes (King James managed it, but his were minor in comparison to what would have to be done). Most of this stuff is fairly recent, the last 300 years, and there are way too many copies out by then for anyone to make any major alterations stick.

You yourself are cherry-picking by only highlighting those passages that reflect exceptionalist doctrine or bloody-mindedness by characters in the story.  Consider them in context with the passages that reflect sublime wisdom and 3000 years of human moral development.  Expand your understanding and stop clinging to your partisan prejudices

Since I’m trying to illustrate the horrible things that are commanded, and usually ignored by its adherents, why would I cite the lovey stuff?

Thinking and principled argument takes rigorous training in logic and rhetoric. Mathematics too, if you want to be anything more than a pedantic rationalizer.

I’m going to ask you a series of questions now that are one-word answers. Yes or no

Is the Bible the handbook for Christians? Yes or No

Is the Christian God the creator of the universe, supposedly perfect, all knowing and all seeing? Yes or No

Does the Bible contain orders by God to commit genocide in his name? Yes or No

Does the Bible contain actions and orders by God for horrible things, such as the murder of children by a bear for making fun of a pious bald man, or that they should be killed for sassing? Yes or no

How is it then, that a Christian can question what the book says that has been (supposedly) written by a being that can see the entirety of time, when their entire belief system is based on said book?

You can’t. Deal with it. Religious, specifically Abrahamic religion is all about absolutes. People rationalize things and cherry pick because they can’t deal with the ludicrous bad parts, or even obey the correct 10 commandments.

Lonny, you have no idea of what is required for COHERENT dialogue.
Wicky, I noticed you wrote “parent” instead of the normal parents.
So you only had one ?

As per your questions, they are not yes/no or even maybe.  they are open to interpretation and nuanced differences in meaning for which you lack the most basic comprehension.  You are over-simplifying and pre-judging according to your own assumptions.  You are arguing by assertion.  A logical fallacy. 

For your information, the Dalia Lama has renounced secular authority.  I’ve met a goodly number of Tibetans, not all religious, and none has ever told a single story of unjust persecution by secular or religious Tibetan authorities, much less widespread human rights violations.  Not to say the history and politics of Tibet at times have been a rough business, but when and where haven’t they?

I guess fighting against foriegn invasion is a crime in your book.  The CIA didn’t arm the Tibetans through the Dalai Lama, but through a Scottish missionary working among the Khampa minority who are renowned for their fiercely independent nature, and pronounced irreligiosity.

And the previous governments of Tibet cannot be considered theocracy, since the Tibetan Buddhist religion is not theo-centric.

“ Since I’m trying to illustrate the horrible things that are commanded, and usually ignored by its adherents, why would I cite the lovey stuff?”

I don’t know.  In the interest of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, maybe?  .

“And wouldn’t a fundamentalist Buddhist be closer to some of those monks that live in incredible seclusion, partially to lower the risk of killing or harming anything?”

No.

As per your questions, they are not yes/no or even maybe.  they are open to interpretation and nuanced differences in meaning for which you lack the most basic comprehension.  You are over-simplifying and pre-judging according to your own assumptions.  You are arguing by assertion.  A logical fallacy. 

No, I’m reading what it says, literally, as it is perfect in every way, because the being that wrote it is perfect according to said religion

Again, you are applying logic and rationality to something that is completely illogical and irrational to its core.

For your information, the Dalia Lama has renounced secular authority.  I’ve met a goodly number of Tibetans, not all religious, and none has ever told a single story of unjust persecution by secular or religious Tibetan authorities, much less widespread human rights violations.  Not to say the history and politics of Tibet at times have been a rough business, but when and where haven’t they?

So having a theocracy is a good thing? Since when?

Here’s the only document I could find quickly, the facts are accurate about pre-China tibet

http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

guess fighting against foriegn invasion is a crime in your book.  The CIA didn’t arm the Tibetans through the Dalai Lama, but through a Scottish missionary working among the Khampa minority who are renowned for their fiercely independent nature, and pronounced irreligiosity.

It is when you’ve publically renounced violence, and your religion EXPRESSLY forbids it.

Dalai Llama was paid by the CIA, and they funded resistance fighters a-la Bay of Pigs

http://www.friendsoftibet.org/databank/usdefence/usd7.html

http://www.onlineathens.com/1998/091598/0915.a3tibetcia.html

don’t know.  In the interest of INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, maybe.  .

It boils down to this. You don’t like what I’m saying, so you keep screaming “out of context” and “intellectual honesty”, but it’s the religious who do not obey their deity who are the dishonest ones. Stop accusing me of their crimes that I’m simply pointing out.

I don’t believe there is any historical evidence that the interpolations in Josephus were performed by the Ecumenical Councils.  In fact, there were several different interpolations from various regional monastic copies at various times, none of which date back as far as the councils.

Christians were much more literate during the Roman period than the Medieval, but they understood the mythological meanings and were not so literalist as the Calvinist Fundamentalists who sprung up after vulgate translations became more available.  This is the very reason the Catholic Church opposed such proliferation.  Esoteric Catholic Doctrine is much more symbolic than the Exoteric teachings.  This made for a very ugly mess during the Reformation.

“No, I’m reading what it says, literally”

No you are not. You are paraphrasing.  Literally would mean you are quoting the text.  But what I’ve said holds.  You are not a Christian, ergo, you cannot presume to what any particular Christian believes, much less generically. 

I say you are not putting things in context because you are not putting things in context.  When it comes to understanding, context is everything.

“It is when you’ve publically renounced violence, and your religion EXPRESSLY forbids it.”

Buddhism does not EXPRESSLY forbid violence.  Buddhism does not forbid anything except as concerns monastic discipline.  Monks renounce violence.  Even then, fights break out. The are only human after all.  No one expects immediate perfection.  It is a long hard row to hoe.  Many lifetimes, some say.  Monks who fought against the Chinese had to resign from their monasteries before joining the fray, often without time for changing out of their robes.  Lay Buddhists seek to overcome violence in their personal lives.  It is always voluntary.  There is no prohibition against self defence.

The Parenti article is mostly accurate.  As I said, Tibetan history and politics has been rough and tumble like the history of any people.  One error is that what he attributes to the 1st DL was done by Mongolian warlords who installed the DL after the fact.

“Dalai Llama was paid by the CIA, and they funded resistance fighters”

The State Dept., through the CIA, partially helped fund the relocation of the Government in Exile in India.  The funding of resistance fighters was as I said.  They didn’t give them money, they gave arms.  Then they tried to dictate where and when and who to fight.  The CIA had little or no presence in Lhasa.

I’m not accusing you of any crimes.  I am just saying you are INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

The problem with saying that Christianity is illogical and irrational to its core is that the Church preserved the logic of Aristotle throughout the Middle Ages. and used it to produce the logical and reasoned body of work from Augustine to Aquinas known as Scholasticism.  They were logical, but not progressively scientific.  However, much of what appealed to people in the early years of Christianity was its agreement with the Neo-Platonist science of the day.  At least the school of Ptolemy of Alexandria.

Acquinas preserved Aristotle but he also mangled him too. It was a mixed blessing. That wicky would reference a notorious Communist Holocaust Denier like Michael Parenti shows his own Stalinist bent. Parenti here on KPFA denied the Gulag on many occasions, minimized the tens of millions killed by the Soviets, Mao, Pol Pot and other Communist regimes. Parenti also praised Khaddafy, Saddam Hussein and particularly Milosevic as good socialists. Parenti lied and said Tudjman of Croatia claimed that only 900 Jews died in WW2 when Tudjman specifically wrote that 900,000 Jews died. And I go on at length. Parenti was claiming that recovered memory skeptics were like “holocaust deniers” a dozen years and of course he’s indignant at any denials except the ones he does for Communist regimes all the time. The CPUSA website speaks of Parenti very favorably. Parenti like wicky is in favor of putting “fascists” he disagrees with in prison. LB, although I totally disagree with your supernaturalism you did a real public service in getting this old Comsymp Wicky to reveal his Stalinist colors. Thanks.

Mikey,

If Aquinas mangled Aristotle, you’ve reduced Aristotle to sludge.  There are so many non-sequitors in the above it is pointless to refute.  Let it stand as a monument of stupidity.

O Yeah, and Mikey,

You’re not welcome. [insert blinking smiley face with lunatic expression here]

No you are not. You are paraphrasing.  Literally would mean you are quoting the text.  But what I’ve said holds.  You are not a Christian, ergo, you cannot presume to what any particular Christian believes, much less generically

Umm, Ive CONSTANTLY quoted the text.

And yes I can, since they have published guidelines. Whether or not you decide to believe it has no effect on the truth of the matter. Now who’s being intellectutally dishonest?

The State Dept., through the CIA, partially helped fund the relocation of the Government in Exile in India.  The funding of resistance fighters was as I said.  They didn’t give them money, they gave arms.  Then they tried to dictate where and when and who to fight.  The CIA had little or no presence in Lhasa.

They gave them arms and training, and paid the Dalai Llama a stipend. You’re trying to steer it away from the parts you don’t like again. A pattern is starting to emerge

I’m not accusing you of any crimes.  I am just saying you are INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST.

You keep using those words, I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Buddhism does not EXPRESSLY forbid violence.  Buddhism does not forbid anything except as concerns monastic discipline.  Monks renounce violence

And the Dalai Llama did, repeatedly and publically. Yet he’s all about his boys going for guerilla training in ordre to make war. Hypocrisy at its finest

The Parenti article is mostly accurate.  As I said, Tibetan history and politics has been rough and tumble like the history of any people.  One error is that what he attributes to the 1st DL was done by Mongolian warlords who installed the DL after the fact.

So you now admit that the theocracy of Tibet was little better, especially when it came to human rights.

The problem with saying that Christianity is illogical and irrational to its core is that the Church preserved the logic of Aristotle throughout the Middle Ages. and used it to produce the logical and reasoned body of work from Augustine to Aquinas known as Scholasticism.  They were logical, but not progressively scientific.  However, much of what appealed to people in the early years of Christianity was its agreement with the Neo-Platonist science of the day.  At least the school of Ptolemy of Alexandria.

Umm, they believe in a being of love that creates things it knows will piss it off so it can send them to hell. That’s illogical. Belief in a deity that has never appeared or proven itself in any recordable way is irrational

The reason why Christianity appealed to people is that it was the first religion that taught that Joe Serf will be equal with King Big Guy in heaven, and that people in misery are always looking for hope. It was popularized because Constantine decided it was a great propoganda tool for the masses and popularized it.

“Umm, Ive [sic] CONSTANTLY quoted the text.”

In the instance refered to you were not.  Again INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

“They gave them arms and training, and paid the Dalai Llama [sic] a stipend. You’re trying to steer it away from the parts you don’t like again. A pattern is starting to emerge”

This is not significantly different from what I said.  The pattern that is emerging is that you are INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

“You keep using those words, I don’t think it means what you think it means.

Ask me why I’m not surprized?  It’s because you’re INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST

The rest of your post:  Blah, blah, blah.  Assertion. Assertion. Assertion. (argumentum ad nauseum [INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST])

(scratch) INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST
(scratch)INTELLECTUALY DISHONEST

Considering that I keep proving what you say wrong, is that really all you’ve got left?

You aren’t proving anything.  You are asserting things are true without any more support than your own opinion.

When I demonstrate that your assertions are false you ignore it and repeat your self referenced opinions ad nauseum.

That is _____________ _________.

You aren’t proving anything.  You are asserting things are true without any more support than your own opinion.

Now you’re just outright lying. I’ve linked to articles in the last 3 posts, which proved your claims demonstrably wrong and when I told you to go call an anthropologist you went off on something about them being partisan.

Republican technique #34 again-Accusing others of the crimes you commit yourself.

You’re just as bad as they are, the worst part is that you convince yourself that you’re just aggressively neutral, when in reality what you really hate is negativity

Given:  Wicky thinks all Christians believe the Bible is literally true.

Given:  Many Christians do not believe the Bible is literally true.

Ergo:  What Wicky thinks is false.

“...in reality what you really hate is negativity.”

Well, I can’t say I find it appealing.  You know, you can attract more flies with sugar than vinegar.

You’re wrong about what I said about anthropologists, by the way.  I won’t call you a liar over it, though.

You also linked to articles in the third previous post, not in the “last three posts”.  I won’t call you a liar over it, though.

Let us just say, ‘factually challenged’.

Given:  Wicky thinks all Christians believe the Bible is literally true.

Given:  Many Christians do not believe the Bible is literally true.

Ergo:  What Wicky thinks is false.

Ergo, you misrepresent my repeatedly stated positions

Given- All Christians are required to believe the bible is literally true
Given- Most of them don’t and instead cherrypick in order to reconcile the ludicrousness with their rational mind.

As I’ve stated over and over and over again. Instead you decide what I’m arguing and argue that.

Well, I can’t say I find it appealing.  You know, you can attract more flies with sugar than vinegar.

Tried that for years. Done with it. I’m not going to enable them any more. Theists must be held accountable for their mental illness, and the things they are required to believe. Their lack of religious education is no excuse.

You’re wrong about what I said about anthropologists, by the way.

Here’s your exact quote

“Any anthropologist who has as non-objective and simple-minded a view of religion as you is a failure in his profession. “

It’s a refusal, and obviously pointing toward a bias. You haven’t done it, you prefer to just shout back your “nuh-uh"s.

You also linked to articles in the third previous post, not in the “last three posts”.  I won’t call you a liar over it, though.

Let us just say, ‘factually challenged’.

All you have left is your nitpicking

“Given- All Christians are required to believe the bible is literally true”

Who says so?

WickyWoo says so.

So?

What I said about anthropologists:

““Any anthropologist who has as non-objective and simple-minded a view of religion as you is a failure in his profession.”

What you said I said about anthropologists:

...when I told you to go call an anthropologist you went off on something about them being partisan.

Was it (competent) anthropologists I was calling non-objective?  Really?  You really think so?

No, Really?

“Given- All Christians are required to believe the bible is literally true”

Who says so?

WickyWoo says so.

So?

The bible says so, and as the handbook for all Christians, you must follow it.

It’s like saying “I want to be a boy scout”, then tossing the handbook in the garbage

What I said about anthropologists:

““Any anthropologist who has as non-objective and simple-minded a view of religion as you is a failure in his profession.”

What you said I said about anthropologists:

...when I told you to go call an anthropologist you went off on something about them being partisan.

Was it (competent) anthropologists I was calling non-objective?  Really?  You really think so?

Since the only comment you made was about partisan anthropologists, and you failed to report the results of such a call, what other conclusions would one logically reach?

And I really wonder if anthropologists were to tell you that I’m correct, that you wouldn’t just lable them as partisan and move on.

Yeah, I think you would

Loony Lunatic, WHAT are the nonsequiturs in my comments ? Any professor of philosophy will tell you that Acquinas did rescue Aristotle but that he also mangled him to conform to Church doctrine.
As to the rest of my comments on Wicky’s sourcing the Stalinist apologist Parenti, what’s your objection there ? Every word is true and as much of it is in print as on the many audio cassettes of Parenti lectures just here in Berkeley alone. And how could I reduce Aristotle to “sludge” ? I’m an admirer of his and it’s not possible anyway. He had his many errors but was the greatest thinker of all time. You may be actually psychotic, I think WoozyJoo may have the perfect lobotomy for you......oh, christ, I forgot ! You already had one.

Wicky, it’s time to up Loony Lunatic’s Prozac and Zoloft dosage and commence the shock treatments, the lobotomy was not as helpful as we had initially thought. You have won this debate but it’s a phyrric victory since you were debating one of the no-minds of no-mindism. Most dogs could win a debate with the unluminous antibeauty.

You have an amazing capacity for imputing motives that borders on the supernatural.  It’s like you can read my mind. Not!

I just don’t understand you can interpret my saying that you are being non-objective and simplistic in a manner that no anthropologist worth his salt would countenance as meaning I would in any way dismiss the opinions of competent anthropologists.  It is a mystery beyond mere human comprehension.  Especially considering this post I wrote a bit later:

“I have read Harris and Dawkins.  They lack any professional expertise in anthropology or comparative religion… You might study the works of Joseph Cambell, Mircea Eliade, Francisco Varela, Charles Tart, Gregory Bateson, Elaine Pagels, et al., to get a more comprehensive understanding of the subject.”

Excepting Varela, they are all anthropologists.  Excepting Bateson they are specialists in religious studies.  You might check them out.  Pagel’s scholarship is probably the source for many of the bombs you like to throw.  She is a devout Christian, nonetheless.  Joe Cambell was one of the world’s most respected authorities on comparative religion and religious symbolism and a life long Catholic.

If I am so dismissive of anthropologist’s opinion, why would I refer to anthropologists?

My college anthropology professor, Dr. Charles Black, was the second white man and the first scholar to ever be admitted into a Hopi Kiva ceremony.  Do you really think he could have done that if he was as arrogant and blithely dismissive of their religion and culture as you are of Christianity?

Please read this SERMON by a Christian minister. 

Please note she doesn’t shy from admitting the superstitious, contradictory and bloody elements in scripture.  Not cherry-picking, not editing anything out, but putting the whole in historical perspective. 

Please understand that by showing one Christian who does not believe as you insist every Christian must believe, that your assertion is falsified.

Now, I’ve done this repeatedly, yet you keep returning to the same tired circular arguments.

Please?

You have an amazing capacity for imputing motives that borders on the supernatural.  It’s like you can read my mind. Not!

just don’t understand you can interpret my saying that you are being non-objective and simplistic in a manner that no anthropologist worth his salt would countenance as meaning I would in any way dismiss the opinions of competent anthropologists.  It is a mystery beyond mere human comprehension.  Especially considering this post I wrote a bit later:

An anthropologist would tell you that tribes of the region at the time would have considered said rules only applicable to their own sect, in the generic sense

Again your response indicated no desire to confirm the information

“I have read Harris and Dawkins.  They lack any professional expertise in anthropology or comparative religion… You might study the works of Joseph Cambell, Mircea Eliade, Francisco Varela, Charles Tart, Gregory Bateson, Elaine Pagels, et al., to get a more comprehensive understanding of the subject.”

What does comparitive religion have to do with the topics they discuss, which is the intellectual and physical harm that religion does to invidudals and the world as a whole?

My college anthropology professor, Dr. Charles Black, was the second white man and the first scholar to ever be admitted into a Hopi Kiva ceremony.  Do you really think he could have done that if he was as arrogant and blithely dismissive of their religion and culture as you are of Christianity?

Culture? No. Any religion, be it Abrahamic to Native American based in the supernatural (99%) has the same issues. I argue Abrahamic since it’s what 99% of the opponents I come against follow and are familiar with.

Please understand that by showing one Christian who does not believe as you insist every Christian must believe, that your assertion is falsified.
Now, I’ve done this repeatedly, yet you keep returning to the same tired circular arguments.

You keep trying to say that I claim that every Christian believes that

The root of my arugement is, and always have been that THEY DO NOT
but that THEY ARE BIBLICALLY REQUIRED TO, and by not doing so THEY ARE BETRAYING THEIR GOD

This Reverand points out the reasons why they shouldn’t, and they’re good reasons, it still does not change the fact that they are required to do it. Again you are assigning logical thought and rationality to a system whose base tenets forbid it.

It is not a fact that they are required to believe that the Bible is literally true.

It is only your opinion and skewed interpretation.

I am not applying logic to Christian belief, but to your arguments.

That is a fact.

If Mikey believes objective reality is all that exists,

Then Mikey does not believe subjective reality exists.

Ergo: Mikey does not believe the reality of his own subjective existence.

Pure Aristotelian logic

It is not a fact that they are required to believe that the Bible is literally true.

It is only your opinion and skewed interpretation.

I am not applying logic to Christian belief, but to your arguments.

That is a fact.

I want you to find the instructions in the Bible that specifically instructs you that you can pick and choose what to follow

And why can’t you ever just post once? The notifications that pile up are annoying

Wicky,

Let us assume you are correct in saying Christians are illogical.

Does that not imply that they are not beholden to the (presumably) logical constraints that you would impose upon their beliefs.

Show me where the Bible says that believing the Bible is literally true is a pre-requisite for Christian faith.

Let us assume you are correct in saying Christians are illogical.

Does that not imply that they are not beholden to the (presumably) logical constraints that you would impose upon their beliefs.

Everyone is beholden to logical constraints, regardless of whether they believe in them.

Show me where the Bible says that believing the Bible is literally true is a pre-requisite for Christian faith.

I’ve already provided many quotes demanding obedience. Again, the book is written by an all-powerful, all knowing being, and is the official handbook of Christianity. Therefore being written by a perfect being that they worship, is unquestionable. This is the very tenets of Christianity, that God is all knowing and all powerful. Therefore questioning his ways is blasphemy because questioning and thinking undermines faith, with is by definition an irrational belief in things that have no evidence.

I want you to find the bible passage for me where it says that god approves of questioning his ways, and then you can keep ignoring all the ones where he smites for said “crime”

Like every thing else IN reality I objectively exist.  My existence does not depend on your subjective approval. Pretty soon you’ll be speaking in tongues along with WoozyJoo. A mystical convergence of two no-minds.

So, Mikey,

Who is the objective observer on whom you rely to confirm your subjective existence?

Existence presupposes proof, moron. You are engaging in the fallacy of the stolen concept, using reason to try to undermine reason. Like everyone else and every other entity that exists it does not require anyone’s validation. Basic logic of the Aristotelian variety. As if there was ever any other kind.

From Jeremiah

31"Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD.

Does this not question the absolute authority of Mosaic Law?

From Ephesians:

2:12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

Tell me how does this not explicitly call into question strict accordance with Mosaic Law?

Does this not question the absolute authority of Mosaic Law?

Yes, the bible contradicts itself on many topics. And you have to believe both versions.

I asked you for a quote claiming the bible doesn’t have to be adhered to, and given the repeated endorsements of Jesus of some of the more horrific Moses laws, I’d say that someone failed to inform the guy who wrote that chapter of that

Here’s a nice collection of biblical contradictions

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Once again, you fail to address the point, that blind belief is a tenant of Christianity and all other religions that worship infalible gods

“Existence presupposes proof, moron.”

Prove it. (without argumentum ad nauseum) A simple syllogism would be nice for starters.

“Like everyone else and every other entity that exists it does not require anyone’s validation”.

How would you know unless you had subjective (personal) experience of existing?

Mikey, you wouldn’t know a formal logical argument from your ass.

Wicky,

You asked where the Bible allows questioning of the Bible.  Don’t weasel away from your assertion.  If the Bible allows questioning of Biblical authority, it follows that the Bible will have contradictory statements, otherwise there would be no verses contrary to prior established Biblical authority.  If questioning the authority of the Bible is permitted by the Bible, then blind belief in the absolute authority of the Bible, much less literal truth, is not required.

You asked where the Bible allows questioning of the Bible.  Don’t weasel away from your assertion.  If the Bible allows questioning of Biblical authority, it follows that the Bible will have contradictory statements, otherwise there would be no verses contrary to prior established Biblical authority.  If questioning the authority of the Bible is permitted by the Bible, then blind belief in the absolute authority of the Bible, much less literal truth, is not required.

The parts you quoted do not allow questioning on the bible, only a prophecy of a second covenant.

And to turn back around your tactic, this is not Jesus speaking but Paul
and here’sthe best part that you left out

2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 
2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 

Only by blind belief will you be saved

And unfortunately for you, there are also more passages that says the laws are binding forever than not, including NT stuff, especially Matthew 5:18 which is from Jesus’ supposed lips.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/otlaw.html

It’s in the Bible, Wicky, that’s what you asked for.

Moving the goalposts, are we? 

I believe I said that the words you claimed as explicitly the intent of Jesus were actually the words ascribed to a character in a story he was telling.  Haven’t gotten over that, have you?

Faith = Blind belief?
Not necessarily so.  It could mean trust and confidence in the face of uncertain knowledge as well. Especially since grace (spiritual knowledge) is a consequence of diligent faith.  One couldn’t exacty presume to believe to know beforehand what grace is, could one?

We’ve already been through the Matthew bit and I showed where Jesus redefined the Law as love God (Truth, God represents what is ultimately true beyond mortal understanding you know) and your fellow man.  But that interpretation doesn’t jibe with your assumptions so you reject it with your customary handwaving.

Blah, blah, blah.

Anyway, as R.W. Emerson said, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

I’m sure you’ll interpret that to mean Waldo believes in hobgoblins.

IT’S AN AXIOM, ASSHOLE. YOU DON’T HAVE TO PROVE IT AND IT CAN’T BE PROVED, IT PRESUPPOSES PROOF. YOU HAVE TO CONTRADICT YOURSELF IN THE ACT OF DENYING IT. YOUR LAST SENTENCE IS WHAT THE PSYCHOLOGISTS CALL PROJECTION.

WHAT YOU CALL THE PERSONAL SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE IS ACTUALLY THE EXPERIENCE OF EXISTING IN OBJECTIVE REALITY, WE SANE PEOPLE CALL IT THE EXTERNAL WORLD. NO SUBJECTIVE PROOF IS REQUIRED, IT IS OBJECTIVELY VALIDATED BY THE MERE ACT OF EXISTING.

LIKE ALL TENTH RATE MINDS YOU RECYCLE THE QUOTE FROM THE LITTLE MAN EMERSON MEDIOCRITY THOUGH IT USUALLY COMES VIA OLIVER WENDELL SHIT IN HIS PANTS HOLMES DOWN TO THE LIKES OF FORMER SENATOR ALAN SIMPSON THEN DOWN TO THE COMIC BOOKS THEN DOWN TO YOUR KIND.

Proof presupposes existence.

It’s just as axiomatic.  And just as meaningless.

External to what?

Axioms are “meaningless” ??????????????? The most basic axiom, existence, is at the root of everythng. Consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists, if what you claim to perceive is not existence, then you are not conscious. Which I think may be at the root of your problems. As for external reality as distinguished from that miasma of nuttiness which are the contents of your head, just use your eyes....................You’ll see it quickly enough.

Faith = Blind belief?
Not necessarily so.  It could mean trust and confidence in the face of uncertain knowledge as well. Especially since grace (spiritual knowledge) is a consequence of diligent faith.  One couldn’t exacty presume to believe to know beforehand what grace is, could one?

faith–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability. 
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one’s promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. 

One cannot have faith in something by your definition unless one has personal experience with that thing. Since there is not a single extra-biblical account of God or Jesus, you must go with definition 2.

We’ve already been through the Matthew bit and I showed where Jesus redefined the Law as love God (Truth, God represents what is ultimately true beyond mortal understanding you know) and your fellow man.  But that interpretation doesn’t jibe with your assumptions so you reject it with your customary handwaving.

And I provided several instances of Jesus admonishing people for not following the law of moses. You can’t get around M5:18, sorry.

Until the world ends (aka Jesus comes back), it’s all valid.

Given that millions of Christians report the experience of grace, one cannot discount their faith as not supported by proof. 

You are trying to prove a general proposition. That requires every instance within the field of argument is in support of that proposition.

For example; All sheep are white.

One black sheep invalidates the proposition. 

Doesn’t matter how many white sheep you can find.

Sorry.

Th-th-th-that’s all, folks!

O, and Mikey,

Axioms only exist as mental constructs, they are not found in the natural world.

Here, here little axioms. Get along little axioms.  HAY-YAW!

I’’ve fed you enough.  Your existence has been validated.

Happy trails!

Wrong, loony. They describe the real world and existence is the most basic of them. You can’t go under or behind or around it. See Leonard Peikoff’s The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy and spare us the dimestore Kantianism. As far as millions of Christian lunatics reporting miracles, the truth is never judged by the quantity of its adherents as I discovered when investigating the misnamed “holocaust.” People lie about all sorts of things and lie en masse too. A long line of zeroes is still A zero.

Given that millions of Christians report the experience of grace, one cannot discount their faith as not supported by proof. 

Umm, no. Sorry

There is absolutely no proof that it’s anything beyond a physical reaction brought on by self delusion. There is ZERO evidence, and in fact plenty of scientific studies that again and again go AGAINST supernatural involvement(prayer studies for example). In each of those cases, their delusion causes an increase in endorphins and other natural healers that raise their condition.. This is all scientifically verified and peer reviewed.

Produce Yahweh, verify his deity, and then get his/her/its actual opinions on the various subjects on the record in a verifiable, scientific fashion.

You are trying to prove a general proposition. That requires every instance within the field of argument is in support of that proposition.

You keep saying that, but I dont’ think, despite continuous repetition that you still have a single clue as to what I’m arguing

Picture this

1-God is perfect
2-God is all-knowing
3-God insists on your blind obedience and worship
4-God wrote a manual for #3
5-Since God is perfect, the manual is perfect
6-Questioning God is disobedience
7-Therefore, the bible is perfect, and all Christians must obey it without question

God is perfect Wicky.

God is all knowing.

Blind obedience was never present in the Bible. Every prophet questioned God at least once. No other gods before me is not “worship”. It is a recognition of the supremacy of the creator over the creation. Worship is an act of devotion and love not fear.

The Bible was written by 40 individuals over 1500 years. God directed it, he didn’t write it personally.

God is perfect. The Bible is an owners manual not a GPS unit. You still have to think for yourself in order to find what you are looking for.

Questioning God has never been disobedience as he already has the answers to your questions and directs you to ask anything of him, you are simply not wise enough to listen or ask.

The Bible has the answers. Man’s interpretation of the answers is imperfect. The Word itself remains perfect.

TexASS, you are even stupider than I thought and my opinion of you was already very low. Give credit to the good Arab peoples’ who concocted that collection of tall tales we call the unholy beeble.  Since “god” never existed and is a meaningless concept how could he/she/it “direct” anything ?

Kudos to Tex, Wicky, and Glock for stepping up to the plate on this asshole Blonde Mike. BM is nothing but a holocaust denying anti-semite and fascist sympathizer. He is also incredibly racist. Like Pat Buchanan and other crypto-fascists as well as boni-fide neo-Nazis like Zundel and others he sees the world through the sick Germanophile lens of the racist nationalist. To him there are only two forces in the world since modern history began in 1933. Those forces are represented by Hilter and Stalin. BM sees everyone lining up on one side or another. Never mind that the US/UK alliance led the cold war for decades at the cost of hundreds of lives. Just so long as you helped Uncle Joe beat back the Nazis, yer a Stalinist!! 

BM (I prefer to think of him as Bowel Movement) rues the effects of WWII which he insists was started by Poland since they refused to give Hitler EVERYTHING he wanted and pronto including the Free CIty of Danzig which was already under Nazi control since the fraudulent 1933 City Council elections. What he doesn’t get is that Danzig was a ward of the L:eague of Nations. The Poles had no Jurisdiction except as customs inspectors from which they collected excise taxes. The League controlled the foreign policy of the City. Certainly all this entitles the Nazis to invade and kill over seven million Polish Citizens.

BM sees the victory of the allies as purely a victory for communism. He sees Roosevelt as a communist. Ditto for all the Jews, the state of Israel, and Churchill. These forces and their communist allies contrived the “story” of the holocaust in order to defame the good name of Germany and promote communism. This is proven by the rise of Israel and the help it received. The Arabs are noble aryan allies of Germany while the Jews are a lying cancer in Western Civilization that needs to be removed. According to BM the US and UK were never really ever threatened by Hitler whose efforts should have been supported in the elimination of those most odious of enemies, communists, Jews, trade unionists, and liberal politicians. According to BM all were strengthened by the victory of the Allies. US trade unions organized a third of the US work force by 1955, the year of the AFL-CIO merger (never mind that this was a conservative move to purge the communists out of the CIO) and the US Democratic party was riding high as we were on the cusp of the Kennedy/Johnson era (and the Vietnam War). Liberalism held sway in epoch long pursuit of such policies as trade unionism and income equality (only briefly), decolonization (mostly wars against communists both real and imagined), liberal policies such as civil rights for racial minorities and other forms of equality (how awful for a democratic country!!), and women’s rights (beotch!!!!) The BM regrets this as he wanted to see the rise of white male conservative rule, the elimination of Jews and a small cluster of large empires ruled by aryan peoples who preside over large martialized slave societies controlled by large, rich corporations and massive labor forces who have so little to show for their efforts that they are barely citizens.

From the actual looks of things currently one wonders who really won WWII. Bowel Movement should actually be pleased. It took a while but his dream actually came true. The proliferation of endless suffering and politically reactionary regimes is current proof.

From the actual looks of things currently one wonders who really won WWII. Bowel Movement should actually be pleased. It took a while but his dream actually came true. The proliferation of endless suffering and politically reactionary regimes is current proof.

I often wonder who really won the Civil War myself. Most of those policies are right out of the same reasons that the southern landowners started the war in the first place. Threat to their feudal lifestyle and continued autonomy to abuse those less fortunate (white and black alike).

Chicago, you are the quintessential lying bag of shit. Just about every ad hominem you have used and every specious “argument” above I have have refuted at length many times over. As for TexASS, I beat his racist ass into the ground a jillion times, the Christian nutcase Glock was wiped out in the second round and your fellow loinsman, the smelly old practitioner of Soviet style psychiatry had his ancient sanhedrin ass publicly whipped by me. He also withdrew. Went away wimpering like a dog. Occasionally TexASS makes a guerilla foray but then I administer a mighty intellectual ass beating and he goes whining back to the kennel. So I see your even recycling the Israeli Big Lie of A-Rab-Nazi collaboration. Actually Lenni Brenner, whom I knew years ago, actually published several books on Zionist-Nazi collaboration. the Mufti visited Germany once during the war. Big fucking deal ! Anwar Sadat was pro-German during the war as was Ireland, an anti-UK animus in both cases.  I already refuted at length your lies about Zundel, Danzig, Buchanan, DemJanJuk, Versailles, etc. Why waste time rehashing the same old, same old ? We Irish don’t like to chew over the same old cabbage. One of the nice that’s happening is that your Stalinist denial laws are backfiring AND PEOPLE ARE RAPIDLY LOSING THEIR OF JEWS.  My Jewish wife normally dislikes the epithet “kike” but she uses it for you. Pretty soon people when falsely called “auntey-seamite” by pieces of shit like you, are going to punch your face and shout SO WHAT !  Yes, your “good war” has turned out awry.
Wicky Woozy, the North STARTED the Civil War, the South was merely exercising their right to secede as every state comes voluntarily into the union and every state can leave voluntarily. THE STATES MAKE THE UNION, NOT VICE-VERSA.  You Sovietophile. And Lincoln HATED blacks. The South Rises Again ! Hooray ! Hooray ! Hooray ! And the AFL-CIA goes the way of the dinosaur.

Lincoln saw a political advantage when he saw it. While he wasn’t a fan of black people, he saw a way to really cheese off his enemy and possibly create disruption in the South and took it.

Whether they had the right to secede or not is an issue for debate. What is not under debate were the cannon shells they fired, The southern landowners saw their business model being marginalized and profits down and did something about it

Lincoln was on record as being FOR segregation for decades before he became President. He also advocated repatriation to Africa when he WAS Prseident, see The Real Lincoln by Thomas DiLorenzo. Actually it IS for debate whether secession is legal or not. Who the hell are you to tell us by fiat what is debatable ?  Slavery was always a losing business and it would have failed regardless of the outcome.

Slavery was always a losing business and it would have failed regardless of the outcome

On the contrary, it let them make a single payment of what someone might make in a year, and then force them to work from birth to death for only the cost of very basic room and board, plus the property reproduces itself to boot!

Slavery would have continued as long as it was allowed. No good greedy conservative would ever pass up free(or virtually free) labor, they just use illegal immigrants now. they’d just make them work the machines instead of picking by hand

CDC -

Bowel Movement says:

My Jewish wife normally dislikes the epithet “kike” but she uses it for you.

I wonder if that is literally true?  That would certainly be a strange thing for a nice Jewish girl to say, but being married to Bowel Movement, maybe she is not so nice.  It is hard to believe that she is so naive that she doesn’t know what is going on with BM, but that is also a possibility. 

At any rate, what Nina thinks could be verified.  Michael P. Hardesty lives with Nina and a bunch of cats in Oakland, CA, in a mixed-race neighborhood.  Hardesty alternates between expressing hatred for the blacks he lives near, and bragging about how great they get along.  I certainly question how an overt racist and ignoramus like Bowel Movement could get along within a black community.

WW -

I have enjoyed many of your observations, including the ones I do not necessarily agree with.  But your views on the roots of the Civil War are superficial, and lacking.

Most of those policies are right out of the same reasons that the southern landowners started the war in the first place. Threat to their feudal lifestyle and continued autonomy to abuse those less fortunate (white and black alike).

Were the “southern landowners” more abusive than the northern factory owners?  Probably not.  Early industrial conditions could be quite severe, and generated much comment from the likes of Dickens and Marx.

The conflict between North and South had deep roots, and initially had little to do with class exploitation, and much to do with economic exploitation.  You may recall the 1828 Tariff of Abominations from your American History lessons.  The North had the people (and their votes) and the factories, but the South had the agriculture.  Virtually all federal revenues were from tariffs in 1860, but cotton was over half of all exports.

The North had a long history of high tariffs, which protected their industrial base, but which raised the price of all manufactured goods for the south.  The Europeans institiuted retaliatory tariffs against American goods, principally cotton and agricultural products.  So Northern votes forced higher costs and lower incomes on the South.  This was the central focus of American political thought for the thirty years preceding the so-called Civil War.  The North voted themselves economic advantage at the South’s expense.

The Morrill Tariffs were voted into law immediately before Lincoln’s first inaugural, and they almost doubled tariffs on manufactured goods, a direct cost to all inhabitants of the South.  Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address expressed hopes for peace, but he insisted that he would collect all tariffs.  Lincoln was saying that the continued economic exploitation of the South by the North would be a feature of his Administration. 

The first military shots of the War Between the States may have been fired by the South, but the economic broadsides from the North had been a fixture of the young United States for decades.  The South always insisted it was fighting for States Rights, while the Emancipation Proclamation was a belated and incomplete effort driven more by propaganda than by human rights.

Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, nice to see ya again ? So you normally agree with the practitioner of Soviet style psychiatry, Wicky ? Kind of strange for a professed conservaturd, isn’t it ? Now your research is off again, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. You know nothing about our neighborhood except what I’ve posted largely on one venue in the past. For several years now, we have had only one neighbor that has caused problems, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates and many we get along with. As far as my wife’s characterization of Chicago Commie Cabbie, what the fuck business is that of yours, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates ?  In fact, what does any of this have to do with the debates that we have here, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates ? I guarantee you that if I met you in person I’d beat your stinky ass to a pulp, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. You are a physical coward and you’d never reveal your identity which is why you have to hide behind a pseudonym but I have insisted that all people here properly call you by your correct name, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. By the way, I never thought you were a Fed solely because you looked me up on the defunct Oakland News site but because of many strange, defensive things you wrote about the Iraq policy, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. The person who attacked me there very shortly afterwards died and one less Demo Party hack in the world. Most of Oakland celebrated, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. Wicky, as usual your full of it, it was the capitalist north that abolished slavery in the anti-capitalist feudalist south, not intentionally but as a byproduct of war. You simply have fixated every evil as “conservative” but slave labor could never compete with free labor and that’s even why Khrushchev abolished the Gulag.  Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, go back to your rathole in Blue state Ohio and count your lucky blessings that you are anonymous. Otherwise, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, you be getting the beating of a lifetime. Capice, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates ? Now let me know if there is anything here I need to make clearer, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates.

Bowel Movement -

As far as my wife’s characterization of Chicago Commie Cabbie, what the fuck business is that of yours …

Ummm, because you put it on the internet for everyone to read?

… you’d never reveal your identity …

But Hardesty, you never revealed your identity, except that you stupidly put it all over the internet and it was easy to find.  And then you even more stupidly demanded that I reveal my identity.  You surely don’t think that I am as stupid as you are, to leave tracks like a D-9 Cat for people to trace.  Whatever you thought, you accused me of being a Fed.  But that’s alright, I accept that everything you say is suspect at best, and farcical or demented at worst.  I enjoy your nonsense, keep up the good work.

Were the “southern landowners” more abusive than the northern factory owners?  Probably not.  Early industrial conditions could be quite severe, and generated much comment from the likes of Dickens and Marx.

I’m not denying that people, no matter what their geographic location can and are assholes. However the people in the North didn’t start a war, commit treason and didn’t own slaves and keep insisting on conditions that forced new states to accept their slave ways that many of them did not want simply to keep a “balance”.

The South always insisted it was fighting for States Rights, while the Emancipation Proclamation was a belated and incomplete effort driven more by propaganda than by human rights.

That’s pretty much what I said, and States Rights are, and always have been a simple code for the abuse and exploitation of others.

All of thsi was symptomatic of the views of the states as individual little countries, something that was encouraged by the founding fathers (check out the Articles of Confederation), again another group more interested in their own personal bank accounts than the general welfare (for the most part, there are many notable exceptions), and they started a war over it too, but at the very least they had many legitimate gripes about underrepresentation and ignoring of their needs, something the south did not lack.

What they did, and always have lacked is a willingness to change when things aren’t working, The south has always planted its feet and had to be dragged kicking and screaming along the advancements of the rest of the world, and have been instrumental in making us the socially backwater nation we are today. So forgive me if I don’t cry too hard for them.

Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, I have not posted on that many venues and when I posted here I’d forgotten about the OaklandNews, because it was four years ago and was defunct shortly after I was banned along many others by the old lefty hag who owned it. They still maintain it but only in archival form. In any event, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, what I wrote on there was irrelevant to what was on here.  You invaded my privacy, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates and if I pierce your identity, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates, I’m going to make you wish your parents had never met, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. You are a liar, an anti-intellectual moron and a physical coward, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. One positive effect of my postings here has been to radically decrease yours, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. As far as my remarks to Chicago go, that’s none of your concern, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates. I already explained that I thought you were a govt agent provocateur early on because of your off the wall defenses of the indefensible Bush Iraq policy. Sometimes the Feds will hire a stupid egg like you, Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates.

Wicky, why do you think you have a mandate to change southerners’ views ? Just like the Balts finally seceded from Russia and Bosnia from Yugoslavia, these people have the absolute right to secede from DC. Your view of The Founders is the usual stupidass Marxian garbage but you have an absolute right to your benighted views. As far as abuse and expolitation goes the centrally planned command economies of the former Commie countries were the champoins in this regard.
Personally I think southern views on religion and abortion are backward but that’s their problem, not mine or yours.

Wow scorpy, I think that since you have his name, addres and phone number that perhaps you should contact the Nazi’s local police department, considering how unstable he is

At the very least there might be some good standoff footage on the news ;)

Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates does not have my address or phone number. Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates has been reputed to have worked for Paul Bremer in Iraq. Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates allegedly cleaned the Baghdad City Latrines, with his tongue.  That would make Scorpy Doobie AKA Master Bates a Pissoirtriot. Wicky, what is your license number again ? Your state medical society will be contacting you about the permanent suspension. Wicky, does your keeper let you stay up to watch the late news ?

Am I the only one getting the mental image of Taz spinning around right now?

You seeing strange images ? Hearing voices ? Pink rats ? Joooos driving Chicago cabs with colostomy bags over their heads ? Sounds serious........maybe call 911......

WW -

Wow scorpy, I think that since you have his name, addres and phone number that perhaps you should contact the Nazi’s local police department, considering how unstable he is

Naah, don’t bother.  Those two love birds are well known in the Oakland and SF PDs.  Nina got her name in the Chron back a few months ago, complaining to the police about something or other.  But Hardesty is well protected, he has a .357 Mag.  Besides that, he can stomp your butt.  Just ask him.

If you are so motivated, you contact the police about Hardesty as a public service.  Knock yourself out, boy.

Scorpy Doobie