Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 23 Nov '14 00:18
    I was recently cited as having a different view close to 10 years ago on this board. So how have you changed, if any since posting here?

    Or have you?
  2. 23 Nov '14 00:32 / 2 edits
    Ok, I'll go first.

    I used to think that we had two political parties in the US, now I understand there is only one. All it is we see are monkeys in a cage flinging poo at each other. No one is ever held accountable as both parties feed off the failure of the other as society turns to any seeming alternative each election cycle.

    I also used to be disagree with the entire theory of evolution. As most Christians, I was fed a steady diet of Creationism is true and evolution is false, with the assumption that the two were mutually exclusive. However, now I see that to be a false choice. The Bible is very vague at best as to how life came about in the Genesis account, and it certainly does not claim that the earth is only thousands of years old. Although I don't claim to believe the theory of evolution in its entirety, I'm open to the possibilities of it, with the acknowledgement that I simply assume to know how God went about creating things, but don't really. At least I'm open to both views of Creationism and evolution, as where most are solidly sold out to one viewpoint.

    I also now reject theocracies in today's world and in time past. For example, Constantine is nothing but a source of embarrassment for Christians like me. Before Constantine, Christianity flourished for hundreds of years as it spread like wild fire even though they were thrown to the lions in mass. The Inquisitions and Crusades were soon to follow, providing most with enough ammo to reject Christianity altogether.

    But alas, subversion is what humanity is born to do, whether it is a religion founded for human freedom, or a Constitution meant to do the same.
  3. 23 Nov '14 00:58
    And lastly, I hold no hard feelings towards those who have tried to label me a conspiracy theorist/racist/misogynist in the past.

    And this is why.

    "You have mercury in your teeth; you have been injected dozens of times with mercury, aluminum and multiple other excitotoxins and neurotoxins, you are breathing nanoparticle alumunimum, barium salts, and lithium; your food has been poisoned with heavy metals, Aspartane, monosodium glutamate and dozens of otgher neurotoxins; your municipal water is poisoned with brain destroying hydrofluorosilicic acid, lead, aluminum, chlorine and other neurotoxins. You have been indoctrinated in globalist public schools, mesmorized and mind controlled by globalist controlled news and entertainment media and "your" government continually lies to you, threatens you with violence and scares you into submission with false-flag attacks.

    So no, I'm neither surprised nor upset when you pose stupid arguments and call me a "conspiracy theorist". I understand, and I forgive you."


  4. 23 Nov '14 10:22
    My views have been enriched by whodey's take on them.
  5. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    23 Nov '14 10:49
    Originally posted by whodey
    Ok, I'll go first.

    I used to think that we had two political parties in the US, now I understand there is only one. All it is we see are monkeys in a cage flinging poo at each other. No one is ever held accountable as both parties feed off the failure of the other as society turns to any seeming alternative each election cycle.

    I also used to be disag ...[text shortened]... do, whether it is a religion founded for human freedom, or a Constitution meant to do the same.
    There is excellent support for your rejection of the two major parties in US politics. You have good reason to adopt a "conspiracy theory" but in fact the conspiracy is transparent if you care to look at the evidence.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview

    ... contrary to what decades of political science research might lead you to believe, ordinary citizens have virtually no influence over what their government does in the United States. And economic elites and interest groups, especially those representing business, have a substantial degree of influence. Government policy-making over the last few decades reflects the preferences of those groups -- of economic elites and of organized interests.

    http://mic.com/articles/87719/princeton-concludes-what-kind-of-government-america-really-has-and-it-s-not-a-democracy

    An interesting take on this study is here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18120-princeton-northwestern-study-seems-to-conclude-u-s-an-oligarchy

    While the concerns of many that our nation may be evolving into an oligarchy may be well founded, it is not the loss of democracy that should be most feared, but the loss of our Republic.

    Creationism, as you noticed here, is based on so few relevant remarks in the Bible that it cannot possibly be accepted "literally" - there is not enough there for a literal reading to produce anything much on the topic. Once you appreciate that it relies instead on a very complex extrapolation from and interpretation of the words in the Bible, then you also realise that Creationism is not the word of the Bible but of very opinionated people who misuse the Bible for their own agenda. You also realise that modern Creationism is not a reversion to ancient (let alone authentic) thinking but instead a modern ideological charade. It is always an error to think modern religious behaviour is in any sense a thing of the past.

    That said, I am stunned that you assume there can be neutrality between this charade and the support for evolution (which is not really a theory at all, but an observation that has to be explained) and the theory of natural selection (which is its best explanation). They are not comparable - but never mind.

    You have a delightful confidence in the idea of an authentic, primitive Christianity prior to its acceptance into the Roman Empire. The whole point, if you read about Constantine, was that once he approved toleration of the Christians, he uncovered a poisonous well of profoundly intolerant bigots, prepared to engage in extreme violence in defence of obscure differences of theological thinking. His attempt to impose some order on those diverse strands was indeed the reason for a coherent Christian theology emerging in the first place, but it discarded (of necessity) many alternatives along the way, a variety of which survive today. Certainly, Arianism played a major role in the next thousand years (for example).
    Part of the wildfire, of course, was actually the spread of the Jewish faith around the Mediterranean basin, with a great many converts until the Christians gained ascendancy. In short, your primitive Christian faith is a fantasy and historically there was no such thing, rather a great diversity of enthusiasms from which modern Christianity emerged in an evolutionary process, perhaps by natural selection.
  6. 23 Nov '14 13:02
    Originally posted by finnegan
    Creationism, as you noticed here, is based on so few relevant remarks in the Bible that it cannot possibly be accepted "literally" - there is not enough there for a literal reading to produce anything much on the topic. Once you appreciate that it relies instead on a very complex extrapolation from and interpretation of the words in the Bible, then you also re ...[text shortened]... rom which modern Christianity emerged in an evolutionary process, perhaps by natural selection.[/b]
    My "evolution" has been the result of both studying science and a book I read called "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Gerald Schroeder. In the book he reveals how "literalists", before the advent of modern science, interpreted the Bible much differently than "literalists" of today.

    Essentially their expertise of the Hebrew language and passed down information brought them to conclude that the earth was much older than thousands of years old, and other interesting conclusions such as there being other "humanoid" beings around during the existence of Adam and Eve. Their conclusion was that the only thing that separated them was God breathing his Spirit into them.

    Now these are astounding conclusions considering that all they had to work with was the Hebrew text in Genesis.

    And no, the Bible is not a book of science, that is not its purpose, but as shown in this particular book, literalists still have a foot in the door with both evolution and the fact that the earth is billions of years old and not thousands.
  7. 23 Nov '14 13:20 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by finnegan
    [b]There is excellent support for your rejection of the two major parties in US politics. You have good reason to adopt a "conspiracy theory" but in fact the conspiracy is transparent if you care to look at the evidence.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/princeton-scholar-demise-of-democracy-america-tpm-interview
    This is where both the right and left are in agreement. We are ruled by an oligarchy. The difference comes in what to do about it.

    Those on the left tend to believe that all that needs to be done is to try and pry the top 1% away from influence of that oligarchy as where those on the right are more inclined to actually break apart the oligarchy altogether and return power to local powers.

    This is why I view collectivism as the cause for our democracy gone awry. The Federal government was never meant to run the country. The transformation has occurred slowly over time, with perhaps the fastest change happening at the turn of the 20th century when the Federal government created the Fed and the federal income tax and Senators were not longer appointed by state representatives. It was at that very moment that state power and influence went down the tubes.

    Now the federal government simply throws all that money around at various people to impose its will around the world, and especially at home. Now states best behave or find themselves without federal funding that they have become dependent upon. This has resulted in a crushing debt that will destroy the Republic, and what is worse it has destroyed our representative democracy. This is because we all have the power to vote for or against local officials, but in the Federal government our ability to vote comes down to only 2 Congressmen out of hundreds. Why then should they have more power over us than those we can vote for directly? This is why the approval rating of Congress is only 10% amongst American voters.

    Of course, the other problem is when power centralizes, the vote becomes diluted. For example, we all can vote for a President, but that vote does not count as much as it would be voting for a governor or even mayor. That is because the voting is not as diluted. It is akin to entering a lottery where there are 500 million tickets, or just a few thousand. Why then would we seek to empower more a man for whom our vote counts for as less?

    And so it goes, the left continues to prop up a collectivist system where the Executive branch tells us all what to do, the majority of which in that executive branch are unelectable bureaucrats who pass regulations which amount to as laws. Once again, another subversion of democracy.

    And you see this disdain for democracy amongst the elitists of today with Jonathan Gruber coming out and making fun of voters as being "stupid" for voting for a man who gave us Obamacare. Then when it the legislation is passed and the majority of Americans oppose it, they ignore the will of the people and just mock us for believing their lies to sell it to us.

    And yes, opinions tend to change because we are continually lied to. Unfortunately, they are allowed to lie with impunity, which further erodes our power to vote for people who promise to do certain things a certain way.
  8. 23 Nov '14 15:05
    Originally posted by finnegan
    You have a delightful confidence in the idea of an authentic, primitive Christianity prior to its acceptance into the Roman Empire. The whole point, if you read about Constantine, was that once he approved toleration of the Christians, he uncovered a poisonous well of profoundly intolerant bigots,
    And you have a bigoted view if Christians. Constantine approved of tolerance towards Christians, but he himself was not one until he reportedly coverted on his death bed. In fact, Constantine even had his own wife and son murdered.

    On what basis do you hold your view of Christians other than those statists who came after Constantine? I'm curious as to what historical reference you are using.

    From my studies Chritians were known for three things.

    1. Generostiy
    2. Abstinence from sexual interactions
    3. Pagans, since they did not worship the gods of those around them
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    23 Nov '14 15:19
    Originally posted by whodey
    And you have a bigoted view if Christians. Constantine approved of tolerance towards Christians, but he himself was not one until he reportedly coverted on his death bed. In fact, Constantine even had his own wife and son murdered.

    On what basis do you hold your view of Christians other than those statists who came after Constantine? I'm curious as to w ...[text shortened]... e from sexual interactions
    3. Pagans, since they did not worship the gods of those around them
    Standard Protestant perspective - in many ways similar to the Muslim perspective - that they are following the "True Religion" of Abraham before it was corrupted by those Roman villains.

    These people with their "White Christianity" are so annoying.
  10. 23 Nov '14 15:47
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Standard Protestant perspective - in many ways similar to the Muslim perspective - that they are following the "True Religion" of Abraham before it was corrupted by those Roman villains.

    These people with their "White Christianity" are so annoying.
    What are you babbling about?

    Christians follow the views of Jesus on the Bible as where Muslims follow those of Mohammad.

    If you had not noticed, they are a tad bit different.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    23 Nov '14 16:23
    Originally posted by whodey
    What are you babbling about?

    Christians follow the views of Jesus on the Bible as where Muslims follow those of Mohammad.

    If you had not noticed, they are a tad bit different.
    Unfortunately in turning their backs on Rome they turned their backs on rationalism and science. Great warriors, but they tend to be mentally challenged.
  12. 23 Nov '14 17:40
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Unfortunately in turning their backs on Rome they turned their backs on rationalism and science. Great warriors, but they tend to be mentally challenged.
    Again, what are you babbling about?
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    23 Nov '14 18:35
    Originally posted by whodey
    Again, what are you babbling about?
    You don't understand? I forgot a True Christian like yourself is protected from my sophistry.
  14. 23 Nov '14 19:34
    Originally posted by whodey
    I was recently cited as having a different view close to 10 years ago on this board. So how have you changed, if any since posting here?

    Or have you?
    I've changed in that I'm not nearly as likely to go off on tangents brought up by Progressives/Communists.

    I used to try to explain things to them, but now I know they just want to bounce their balls with no intention of having an actual conversation. I'll have to thank FMF for that.
  15. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    23 Nov '14 19:47
    Originally posted by whodey
    And you have a bigoted view if Christians. Constantine approved of tolerance towards Christians, but he himself was not one until he reportedly coverted on his death bed. In fact, Constantine even had his own wife and son murdered.

    On what basis do you hold your view of Christians other than those statists who came after Constantine? I'm curious as to w ...[text shortened]... e from sexual interactions
    3. Pagans, since they did not worship the gods of those around them
    I do not agree that my view is bigoted. It has certainly evolved over time.

    On what basis do I hold my views about Christians? Partly my life experience and partly a great deal of reading, both directly and indirectly (meaning reading in history and the history of ideas).

    I have been influenced by many sources. Just the books on my shelves are too many to list. I find Karen Armstrong a great source for religious history and I think I have (and have read) all of her books. https://www.goodreads.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=Karen+Armstrong

    Two books I might mention are:

    The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason
    by Charles Freeman
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/138929.The_Closing_of_the_Western_Mind
    This book concentrates on Constantine, hence its relevance to your post.

    Christian Beginnings: From Nazareth to Nicaea, AD 30–325
    by Géza Vermès

    I noticed a lengthy review of the latter book which might interest / amuse you. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/727066528?book_show_action=true&page=1

    I think that, for a type of Christianity that might perhaps resemble your fantasy of a more primitive faith, free of institutional perversions, you would do well to investigate the early Irish Christians in the centuries before they became subject to Rome. That is not just a partisan reference from an Irishman by the way. I have a number of books on this topic but they are all old ones and not referenced on Goodreads.