RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films

RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

Amaros -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 8:10:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY ahh, hell ... Western Culture (click for the full article) Western culture or Western civilization is a term used to refer to the cultures of the people of European origin and their descendants. It comprises the broad heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs (such as religious beliefs) and specific artifacts and technologies as shared within the Western sphere of influence. The term "Western" is often used in contrast to Asian, African, or Arab nations. * The concept of Western culture is generally linked to the classical definition of Western world. In this definition, Western culture is the set of literary, scientific, musical, and philosophical principles which set it apart from other great civilizations. It applies to countries whose history is strongly marked by Western European immigration or settlement, and is not restricted to Western Europe. Much of this set of traditions is collected in the Western canon. * The origins of Western culture are often cited as ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Catholic and Protestant Christianity, and as such, some describe it as "Judeo-Christian culture". * A distinctive feature of the Western culture is its focus on science and technology, and its ability to generate new processes, materials and material artifacts. * Aside from food, literature, art, music, religion, and politics, many aspects of Western culture differ from other cultures around the world. Western culture has evolved and changed throughout the past centuries, but at the same time certain themes and trends persist to varying degrees: * An emphasis on technological innovation and science coupled with a belief in progress; * An emphasis on human rights, which are considered natural rights. * Personal freedom as an important value; * Expectation of personal responsibility; * A strong sense of personal privacy and civil rights; * Tolerance of a wide variety of subcultures, some of which have a strong collective or coercive ideology * A sense of personal honor and personal shame that rejects dutiful suicide and honor killings; * Consensus that personal enrichment of political office holders is an offense against society; * Allegiance to the nuclear family, rather than to the extended family. Go read the full article, and do a little googling if you are interested. FHky Don't have time to address this point for point right now, I have some framing to do, but nowhere here does it mention Christianity (though I didn't read it, so that's not the point) - the Greeks were polytheists, as were the Romans for most of their history - respect for scientific knowledge and technology effectively ceased with the ascention of the Catholic Church, who ushered in ten centuries of what we call "The Dark Ages", during which time no appreciable progress was made execept by heretics - all advancements during this time came from Arabic culture, borrowed or rediscovered during the crusades, and it wasn't until the enlightenment things began moving again. True, we owe much to Christian heritage, and the early settlers to this country were all Christian, as were all the philosophers who did the heavy lifting in the formation of representitive democracy we enjoy, Locke, Adam Smith, even Darwin, were all Christians - since for ten centuries, not to be a Christian was to be dead or imprisioned however (the protestants were, if anything, more zealous and indiscriminate in their persecutions and pogroms), this fact loses something of it's force: essentially there was nothing else to be. It was from the lessons of theocracy learned during the dark ages - not just the lessons of dynastic aristocratic oligarchy, but all forms of feudalism - that the seperation of Church and State was concieved, and to say that this country was founded on "Christian principles" is merely to describe our general morality and ethics, which were sadly lacking in certian respects - moreover, such morality in it's core features are generally human ones, detectable back to the dawn of civilization, and not dissimilar to the morality of any other major world religion, Hindu, Muslim, etc. I see such claims as an attempt to influence the political -economy away from it's essentially secular/scientific roots - our form of government, economy, and legal system are all predicated and based on secular philosophy and science, albeit in ways deemed to not conflict strongly with Christian values, and in fact to strengthen it's core values of justice and humility, and attempts to abrogate these in favor of Biblical law, arbitrary and often so vague not even two Christians can always agree on it - is to advocate tyranny and chaos over the order and justice we have fought to establish and preserve. You are free of course, to worship any gods you wish, that's part of it - a free religion is itself part of the balance of power, providing an independent consensus that can influence government through public opinion in ways that subjegation to a party line would not allow, and the establishment clause protects and preserves this particular form of consensus formation from political influence. Too many Christians, it seems, cannot be satisfied with this, and continue to warp their religion for political gain, they refuse to accept that theocratic hegemony has had it's day - been there, done that, ain't goin' back. "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars..." - J.C.

Amaros -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 8:25:38 AM)
In this specific instance, to prosecute pornography content providers based on Christian morality, is to establish Christian morality as a legal precedent - a morality itself which is largely undefined and arbitrary. Gnosticism too is part of the Western tradition, and older than Christianity going back at least to Vedic tantrism - it's core concept is the ability of the individual to perfect their own soul, and know god without priestly intervention - in this persuit, debauchery and asceticism are seen merely as two sides of the same coin. There were no Cathars, Bogomils, etc., to colonize this continent, because they had systematically been eradicated over the course of centuries - are you a Christian if you convert with a gun to your head? Does that count? Short argument: not safe, not sane, definitely not consensual.

NastyDaddy -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 9:24:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY You ain't thinking wide enough, or long enough. Think thousands of years, rather than a couple of hundred, and think outside of the continent of North America. Why should I think back into your box or timeframe? I'm refering to this country I am a citizen of, which was founded 230 years ago to prevent this kind of shit from happening all over again. If you have your own preference as to what and when consitutes the west, that is your "predicament", not mine. Do not lambaste me or other free US citizens with your private agenda. It's your holy war, and not mine... no matter where or when you elect to admire or conduct your god loving warfare. It seems as if you have the US pegged out to be your new combat arena for your previously lost cause of another place and time. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY uh, Nasty, if there was a Jew who "embraced being a believer in Christ" he would be a Christian. Both are fruits of the same loincloth and no matter how you attempt to condescend others who don't relish in your private predicament, it furthers your cause none at all... merely makes you epitomize hypocrisy. Religion seems to be an ever changing adaptation to the hypocrite's liking. It's funny to watch you fight amongst yourselves and seeing the "all new" religion X building their own little church down the street because they can't get their act together with the existing church. On-the-fly religion is not consistent with the founding fathers' foundation for the US, and was safeguarded against. uh, when I say the US, that would be the 230 year old USA... not some other previous location of religious combat/anarchy which served as the basis for the slaughter of native north american inhabitants and theft of their homeland in order for religious zealots to have a new place to hang their ten commandments. Your religious way -or- the highway is not mentioned in the US constitution. Affording you the right to believe is not the same as granting you the right to commit the repeated mistakes throughout history of religious persecution and hypocrisy... go fish!

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 9:41:41 AM)
Nastydaddy, I'm sorry, but your post just wants to make me giggle. [:D] You aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with the reasoned thoughts of many others. I pulled the definition and description of "Western culture" from a source that reflects the thinking of people smarter and more educated than you or I. This concept of Western civilization is and has been the touchstone of the study and teaching of history and philosophy for centuries. If you want to argue about it, please do your own research and try to get a book published, and taught at your local HS or college. I don't suspect you'll make much headway. And it's difficult to take serious - in a even a shallow discussion - of the effects of the Jewish and Christian faiths on the history of the West with someone who wants to insist that a Jew is a Christian or that a Christian is a Jew, or whatever it is that you are trying to claim. FHky

NastyDaddy -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 10:20:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Nastydaddy, I'm sorry, but your post just wants to make me giggle. [:D] You aren't arguing with me, you are arguing with the reasoned thoughts of many others. I pulled the definition and description of "Western culture" from a source that reflects the thinking of people smarter and more educated than you or I. This concept of Western civilization is and has been the touchstone of the study and teaching of history and philosophy for centuries. If you want to argue about it, please do your own research and try to get a book published, and taught at your local HS or college. I don't suspect you'll make much headway. And it's difficult to take serious - in a even a shallow discussion - of the effects of the Jewish and Christian faiths on the history of the West with someone who wants to insist that a Jew is a Christian or that a Christian is a Jew, or whatever it is that you are trying to claim. FHky That's ironic, because your posts are sad... not funny or giggly whatsoever... more at very alarming. It's too obvious that you seek validation of your concepts and feel that you will find such in prepared writings and historical mistakes. You are to be pitied way more than to ever be admired. Once again, take your religious self-righteous indignation down the road... it has no place in my country or in my government.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/11/2006 10:34:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Don't have time to address this point for point right now, I have some framing to do, *but nowhere here does it mention Christianity* (though I didn't read it, so that's not the point) - *** The origins of Western culture are often cited as ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Catholic and Protestant Christianity, and as such, some describe it as "Judeo-Christian culture". *** It helps to read before attempting to refute. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros the Greeks were polytheists, as were the Romans for most of their history - respect for scientific knowledge and technology effectively ceased with the ascention of the Catholic Church, who ushered in ten centuries of what we call "The Dark Ages", during which time no appreciable progress was made execept by heretics - all advancements during this time came from Arabic culture, borrowed or rediscovered during the crusades, and it wasn't until the enlightenment things began moving again. Amaros, up till now, I've had no argument with any of your posts, by and large, but the above highlighted statement is a bit - well, over the top. While the Arabic culture had it's time and we did "draw back in" to Western civilization some things, and learned and adapted some of their inventions (primarily in mathematics), I'm not sure I've ever seen the claim that "all advancement" came from the Arabic civilization at the time. You'll have to source that one for me. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros True, we owe much to Christian heritage, and the early settlers to this country were all Christian, as were all the philosophers who did the heavy lifting in the formation of representitive democracy we enjoy, Locke, Adam Smith, even Darwin, were all Christians - since for ten centuries, not to be a Christian was to be dead or imprisioned however (the protestants were, if anything, more zealous and indiscriminate in their persecutions and pogroms), this fact loses something of it's force: essentially there was nothing else to be. I think ... this was my major point, after my attempt to change the focus of the thread from a "bash all Christians" thread. Everything else is a sidebar. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros It was from the lessons of theocracy learned during the dark ages - not just the lessons of dynastic aristocratic oligarchy, but all forms of feudalism - that the seperation of Church and State was concieved, and to say that this country was founded on "Christian principles" is merely to describe our general morality and ethics, which were sadly lacking in certian respects - moreover, such morality in it's core features are generally human ones, detectable back to the dawn of civilization, and not dissimilar to the morality of any other major world religion, Hindu, Muslim, etc. ahh, but here, Amaros, I've got a bit of a problem. Yes, all people share some basic things. Genetics and the predisposition to language and culture. But what distinguishes one group of people from another? It's the difference in thinking and expressing those similarities in their differing societies. The Western tradition is noticeable different in how it expresses those "core human features", just as the other "cultures" and/or civilizations are different from Western civilization. If there were no differences, we wouldn't have anything to talk about, now would we? [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros I see such claims as an attempt to influence the political -economy away from it's essentially secular/scientific roots - our form of government, economy, and legal system are all predicated and based on secular philosophy and science, albeit in ways *deemed to not conflict strongly with Christian values, and in fact to strengthen it's core values of justice and humility, and attempts to abrogate these in favor of Biblical law, arbitrary and often so vague* not even two Christians can always agree on it - is to advocate tyranny and chaos over the order and justice we have fought to establish and preserve. Two comments from this paragraph. 1. If you accept the proposition that two core values of Christianity are justice and humility, then do you see attempts to strengthen them as a "good thing" or a "bad thing"? 2. Is what you mean when you say "Biblical law" is Old Testament laws? Most (all as far as I know) of Christian traditions believe that the old laws were overcome and made invalid with the arrival af Jesus. In other words, they no longer apply. It's a key belief of what makes a "Christian". quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros You are free of course, to worship any gods you wish, that's part of it - *a free religion is itself part of the balance of power, providing an independent consensus that can influence government through public opinion* in ways that subjegation to a party line would not allow, and the establishment clause protects and preserves this particular form of consensus formation from political influence. Yup. KnightsOfMist covered that well. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Too many Christians, it seems, cannot be satisfied with this, and continue to warp their religion for political gain, they refuse to accept that theocratic hegemony has had it's day - been there, done that, ain't goin' back. "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars..." - J.C. Theocratic hegemony hasn't had it's day yet. In the Western world, with Christianity, I'd conditionally argee with you. However, as Iran shows, as a statement about all religions, all cultures and all people, I'd have to disagree with you. Also, I'd say that most of the immediate and harshly negative comments directed about and to Christians and "their attempt to impose theocratic government" is both an overreaction and an demonstratively emotional overreaction. Not based on any reasoned understanding of history, the religion itself, nor the roots of morality and civil society. An interesting sidebar question (which I bring up not to debate, but to pose as an intellectual exercise) is the possiblity of the Islamic conflict spawning a reactionary return to a more primitive Christianity which does seek secular power. While I don't think it's a probability, it is certainly a possibility. I don't think the US is anywhere approaching this possibility. FHky Edited: spelling

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 10:54:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy Once again, take your religious self-righteous indignation down the road... it has no place in my country or in my government. Again, you make me smile. Would you please back up your words? Be so kind as to show me any "religious self-righteous indignation" in any of my writings? I believe that I've actually been quite calm and restrained, because I am well aware that even the slightest hint of saying anything positive about Christianity (or religion) tends to draw out people just like yourself. What I often see and experience with people like you is projection. Filled with angst and anger, that "see" all kinds of things that are within their own minds and souls, and then project it on anything and everything that comes within their attention. It makes it very difficult to have a calm rational public discussion of history, politics, or society in general, and why I generally stay away from such threads. You probably won't find me posting in any of those type of forums here. And the sad thing is that many of the people who have this projection problem are otherwise quite nice and intelligent people. Just that they have certain emotional "hot spots" that turns off their mind, and turns on their anger. FHky

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 11:11:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros In this specific instance, to prosecute pornography content providers based on Christian morality, is to establish Christian morality as a legal precedent - a morality itself which is largely undefined and arbitrary. Perhaps. But what is "morality"? What are the standards of "right" and "wrong"? Who's to judge? What standard should we use? It's a question that we shall certainly not "finally" solve on this thread. You are right. Standards of morality are almost always largely undefined and arbitrary. Each religion attempts to answer this question. Christianity's is "Love one another" or "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." Simple in words, perhaps not so simple in execution. For the purposes of the intellectual discussion (my goal was never to make this an emotional issue, but rather a cerebal one), my definition of morality is twofold: Morality is 1) those customs that strengthen the society that it operates in and 2) provides the maximium freedom to the individual. But this is not everyone's (or anyone else's, as far as I know) definition of morality, so I'm happy to just be a "religion" of one. FHky

NastyDaddy -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 11:39:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster And just how many Christian states exist today? I can't think of a single one--other than the Vatican. I wanted to address this a bit more, too LaM. I'm not saying that a nation has to be a theocracy in order to be a "Buddhist nation" or a "Christian nation". But the religion should be the major source of the political philosphy of the nation, and the nation should reflect the social impact of the religion. Political parties in the West are a good example. There are plenty of "Christian" parties in Europe, although none with that name in the US (or, no major ones). Some interesting reading: Protestant Political Parties: A Global Survey FHky This is the point where I entered your foray into keeping your nose clean with regard to religion, it's purpose and it's place in the US. You wanted to re-visit and address a bit more what YOU feel "should" be the source of the political philosophy of a nation. Your philopsophy and concepts are based on foolery despite the number of books you've read or written. Your philosophical recreation on a message board does nothing other than make you appear indignant, condescending, know it all, and very self-righteous in your quest to bring others to your distorted and quite biased point of view. Whether you know everything Hitler said or wrote is immaterial, whether you have insight to 5,000 years of religious strife and killing is insignificant to the nation of America and what the founding fathers intended regarding politics and religion. This is today and right now... your intent of validating religion's purpose and place in a nation is not very bright for being such a spot on smart man as you feel you are... very sad indeed somebody feels the urgency to carry such a flameless torch. You posts portray the characteristics of a person who has difficulties in saying what you feel flat out... you have to keep coming back to explain things.... what I meant was... what I should have said was.... followed by personal jabs to seek reinforcement of your grandeur. You don't make others smile, you merely make them feel pity for "your state" of pushing your agenda... go back and review your previous posts. They do not come across as you now tend to characterize them... that damn communication issue again.

Lordandmaster -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 12:04:48 PM)
I don't believe my background has anything to do with why we have "a lack of communications." It doesn't matter whether I'm a tenured college professor, a plumber, or a professional porn producer (or none of the above). It should be possible to communicate with people regardless of their background. Christ certainly would have thought so. Anyway, I don't believe we're having a communication problem at all. I think we simply don't agree with each other. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY "Your background" means simply that, and I'm not sure why your are sensitive about the words. I don't know if you are a tenured college professor, or a plumber, a professional porn producer. I don't know if you have spent 30 years studying the arts or if you've spent the last 10 years in an asylum. I simply don't have enough information about what you believe, your experiences with religion to make a judgement as to why we have a lack of communications.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 12:40:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster And just how many Christian states exist today? I can't think of a single one--other than the Vatican. I wanted to address this a bit more, too LaM. I'm not saying that a nation has to be a theocracy in order to be a "Buddhist nation" or a "Christian nation". But the religion should be the major source of the political philosphy of the nation, and the nation should reflect the social impact of the religion. Political parties in the West are a good example. There are plenty of "Christian" parties in Europe, although none with that name in the US (or, no major ones). Some interesting reading: Protestant Political Parties: A Global Survey FHky This is the point where I entered your foray into keeping your nose clean with regard to religion, it's purpose and it's place in the US. You wanted to re-visit and address a bit more what YOU feel "should" be the source of the political philosophy of a nation. Your philopsophy and concepts are based on foolery despite the number of books you've read or written. Your philosophical recreation on a message board does nothing other than make you appear indignant, condescending, know it all, and very self-righteous in your quest to bring others to your distorted and quite biased point of view. Whether you know everything Hitler said or wrote is immaterial, whether you have insight to 5,000 years of religious strife and killing is insignificant to the nation of America and what the founding fathers intended regarding politics and religion. This is today and right now... your intent of validating religion's purpose and place in a nation is not very bright for being such a spot on smart man as you feel you are... very sad indeed somebody feels the urgency to carry such a flameless torch. You posts portray the characteristics of a person who has difficulties in saying what you feel flat out... you have to keep coming back to explain things.... what I meant was... what I should have said was.... followed by personal jabs to seek reinforcement of your grandeur. You don't make others smile, you merely make them feel pity for "your state" of pushing your agenda... go back and review your previous posts. They do not come across as you now tend to characterize them... that damn communication issue again. Well, Nasty, I can only assume (a dangerous thing, I know, but probably safe in this case), that when you "joined the fray" was when you started reading, and that you didn't read anything before that, and based on your faulty initial assumptions you aren't quite there on comprehension yet either. I wondered why you came out of left field in this discussion. And you've just proved the "projection" thing I mentioned earlier. Don't trouble with choosing words to make a specific point, just slap a few buzz words, and wait for the flack to arrive. [:)] Within the context of the discussion, I used the terms "Christian nation" and "Buddhist nation" or some such, and to LaM, this meant a theocratic state in which the religion chooses the political rulers and holds temporal power. I was simply pointing out in the context I was using, that a "Christian nation" wasn't simply a theorcracy, but a nation in which the culture was based on the Greco-Roman, Judeo-Christian philosophies and traditions. (Ya know, the "Western tradition" thingee I mentioned earlier.) The only "should" was - that in order to be considered a "Christian (Buddhist, Islamic, blah, blah, blah) nation" - then the *"religion should* be the major source of the political philosphy of the nation, and the nation should reflect the social impact of the religion".** This was in no way saying that I believed that Christianity should be the basis of all political authority, et al. I was simply saying that in order to classify a nation as a "Christian nation", it should already be a fact. Does this change your animosity to either Christianity, religion or myself? Didn't think so. [:D] *** Other points: 1. Whether you know everything Hitler said or wrote is immaterial ... You are confusing me with Whip. *** 2. This is today and right now... your intent of validating religion's purpose and place in a nation is not very bright for being such a spot on smart man as you feel you are I'll let George Santayana reply: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." 3. You posts portray the characteristics of a person who has difficulties in saying what you feel flat out... you have to keep coming back to explain things.... what I meant was... what I should have said was.... followed by personal jabs to seek reinforcement of your grandeur. Well, I see it as being polite and restating a concept. It much nicer and conducive to a real give and take conversation to say "Well, I must not have been clear .. " than it is to say "HEY, you fking ignoramus, get a clue, do you have wax in your ears? Are you a re-tard?!" because sometimes a person simply doesn't grasp a concept I might have expressed. It doesn't mean they are dumb, stupid, or mental challenged. It simply means that they didn't understand, and "yelling" at them doesn't improve your chances of actually communicating. It's a lesson on how to deal with people you might want to learn. I'm sure your sub will appreciate it. I guess it's the mentor in me. Of course, it's the smartass dom who sometimes bites back. 4. You don't make others smile, you merely make them feel pity for "your state" of pushing your agenda... go back and review your previous posts. They do not come across as you now tend to characterize them... that damn communication issue again. What's your agenda? re: communications, please refer to item 3. Now, I will say that at times I certainly can be a smart ass. When I choose. However, when I am in the "serious intellectual discussion mode" I restrain myself. When I respond to people like you, I don't. Most people can tell the difference, and the ones who can't, I really don't care. FHky edited for: syntax

angelic -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 12:48:14 PM)
i have been sort of following this thread and although i do not completely understand the thread itself, i must say that i think losttreasure is a very lucky lady. ok... that's all i wanted to say! [:D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 1:27:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster I don't believe my background has anything to do with why we have "a lack of communications." It doesn't matter whether I'm a tenured college professor, a plumber, or a professional porn producer (or none of the above). It should be possible to communicate with people regardless of their background. Christ certainly would have thought so. Anyway, I don't believe we're having a communication problem at all. I think we simply don't agree with each other. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY "Your background" means simply that, and I'm not sure why your are sensitive about the words. I don't know if you are a tenured college professor, or a plumber, a professional porn producer. I don't know if you have spent 30 years studying the arts or if you've spent the last 10 years in an asylum. I simply don't have enough information about what you believe, your experiences with religion to make a judgement as to why we have a lack of communications. 1. Anyway, I don't believe we're having a communication problem at all. I think we simply don't agree with each other. Which is why I said - twice - let us simply agree to disagree. 2. It should be possible to communicate with people regardless of their background. True to an extent, not true to a greater extent. It is shared understanding of concepts learned through experience that allows effective communications about anything. If we understand a concept differently (or perhaps have never heard of a certain concept before) then we can "talk" forever, and not actually be communicating. Knowing something about a person allows another to make some sort of judgement as to the "place" a person is coming from, or to make some assumptions about their experiences, and the possible results of those experiences and knowledge. Not perfectly so, no. For example, if you were a master electronics technician, with 20 years of experience in building and designing computer systems, and you wanted to tell a 80 year old neighbor who never owned even a digital clock radio how to build a new computer from component parts... you might have a problem communicating, because of the different experiences you both had. "Hey! Dell sent me a nice cup holder!" "Ahh, sir, that's a DVD drive." "What's a D-V-D? It has a car? I need a driver's license?" Likewise, the 80 year old neighbor could be a master leather and tack craftsman, who was an artist and a wizard with making leather objects and art, and you wanted him to explain his profession to you with an eye towards becoming an apprentice. Don't you think the different experiences would make a difference in how you talked with each other? The better you know someone, the better chance you have in communicating effectively. Some people don't speak English. Their differing backgrounds would make it difficult to for me to communicate effectively with them. 3. Christ certainly would have thought so. Some experiences are near universal. Most people know the language of love, don't they? FHky

losttreasure -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 1:30:01 PM)
I am. [:D]

NastyDaddy -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 1:41:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY ...I certainly can be a smart ass. That's one thing we do agree on. As far as "people like me" who you cannot steer via your presumptions, there exists no basis for agreement other than what you feel from your presumptions. I'm not the first in this thread to see your presumptuous intellectual nature. If you feel I am wrong in my interpretation of your words, you are at liberty to explain them after the fact as you've been doing thus far. I spoke of the off topic nature of this thread with regards to the US, which is referred to as the western world. I took your references to the west as meaning the west. If you really meant old school europe, but didn't bother to specify and merely referred to that as the west, then surely you have the intellect to realize the basis for my comments... if you don't then it's your problem.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 2:01:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NastyDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY ...I certainly can be a smart ass. That's one thing we do agree on. As far as "people like me" who you cannot steer via your presumptions, there exists no basis for agreement other than what you feel from your presumptions. I'm not the first in this thread to see your presumptuous intellectual nature. If you feel I am wrong in my interpretation of your words, you are at liberty to explain them after the fact as you've been doing thus far. I spoke of the off topic nature of this thread with regards to the US, which is referred to as the western world. I took your references to the west as meaning the west. If you really meant old school europe, but didn't bother to specify and merely referred to that as the west, then surely you have the intellect to realize the basis for my comments... if you don't then it's your problem. Nasty, Ok, I'll stop being a smartass to you, if you'll actually engage me in a little less accusatory and emotional manner. I've no problems with you, really, if you simply misunderstood something I was saying. I'll try the polite route with you, if it'll work. What else about what I've said would you like for me to attempt to explain? To summarize what I think I've been saying in this thread: 1. I first started out by saying that people who rail against Christianity because of all the bad things it members did or does, should be careful and not become the thing that they were condemning. 2. Next, I posited that not every single thing about Christianity was bad. 3. Finally (about where you came in) I was saying that religions have an impact on the societies in which they exist, and different societies and religions fail or succeed based on their interactions. That's the meat of it. Let me know where you take exception. FHky edited for: spelling, damnit.

Amaros -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/11/2006 3:03:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Don't have time to address this point for point right now, I have some framing to do, *but nowhere here does it mention Christianity* (though I didn't read it, so that's not the point) - *** The origins of Western culture are often cited as ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, and Catholic and Protestant Christianity, and as such, some describe it as "Judeo-Christian culture". *** It helps to read before attempting to refute. [:D] Right, of course they do mention quite few things other than Christianity, perhaps why I missed it. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros the Greeks were polytheists, as were the Romans for most of their history - respect for scientific knowledge and technology effectively ceased with the ascention of the Catholic Church, who ushered in ten centuries of what we call "The Dark Ages", during which time no appreciable progress was made execept by heretics - all advancements during this time came from Arabic culture, borrowed or rediscovered during the crusades, and it wasn't until the enlightenment things began moving again. Amaros, up till now, I've had no argument with any of your posts, by and large, but the above highlighted statement is a bit - well, over the top. While the Arabic culture had it's time and we did "draw back in" to Western civilization some things, and learned and adapted some of their inventions (primarily in mathematics), I'm not sure I've ever seen the claim that "all advancement" came from the Arabic civilization at the time. You'll have to source that one for me. That's easy, name one thing the Europeans came up with from 800 to 1400 that wasn't borowed from China or the Arabs besides the Malleus Maleficarum and the Iron Maiden. Ghengis Kahn declined to even invade, it wasn't worth the effort, even for sport. Paracelsus who ushered in the era of modern medicine, burned the entire university library, and claimed he learned everything he knew from witches and hangmen. Ah wait, I got one ofr ya: linear perspective. The Roman engineering tradition continued of course, with the arch, borrowed from the Arabs, and I think the Franks came up with steel at one point, though it might have been the Moors - not much else, I'm afraid - mathmatics, banking, astronomy chemistry, etc., all from the ME where the ancient Greek texts were preserved rather than burned after the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches. You can call it "Western culture", but without the Arabs, it would have been lost forever, burned as heresy by the Imperial Roman Church, along with anybody who had read them. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros True, we owe much to Christian heritage, and the early settlers to this country were all Christian, as were all the philosophers who did the heavy lifting in the formation of representitive democracy we enjoy, Locke, Adam Smith, even Darwin, were all Christians - since for ten centuries, not to be a Christian was to be dead or imprisioned however (the protestants were, if anything, more zealous and indiscriminate in their persecutions and pogroms), this fact loses something of it's force: essentially there was nothing else to be. I think ... this was my major point, after my attempt to change the focus of the thread from a "bash all Christians" thread. Everything else is a sidebar. Which point? That at the time that North, Central, and South America were settled by Europeans, they were all Christians, under threat of death or imprisonment, or the point that the reason they were all Christians is because they'd killed everybody else? quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros It was from the lessons of theocracy learned during the dark ages - not just the lessons of dynastic aristocratic oligarchy, but all forms of feudalism - that the seperation of Church and State was concieved, and to say that this country was founded on "Christian principles" is merely to describe our general morality and ethics, which were sadly lacking in certian respects - moreover, such morality in it's core features are generally human ones, detectable back to the dawn of civilization, and not dissimilar to the morality of any other major world religion, Hindu, Muslim, etc. ahh, but here, Amaros, I've got a bit of a problem. Yes, all people share some basic things. Genetics and the predisposition to language and culture. But what distinguishes one group of people from another? It's the difference in thinking and expressing those similarities in their differing societies. The Western tradition is noticeable different in how it expresses those "core human features", just as the other "cultures" and/or civilizations are different from Western civilization. If there were no differences, we wouldn't have anything to talk about, now would we? [:D] Different how? Unless you mean that Christianity is notably more chauvanistic than any other religion save radical Islam, and appears possessed of a singular monomania for power - I can think of no other religion that has started so many wars over religion, or murdered so many because of it - the Romans were very tolerant of other religions, even subsumed them into it's own - there were cults and temples in Rome from Astarte to Ahura Mazda. Christians were persecuted mainly due to their insistence that all other gods were false and abominations - and perhaps for a tendency toward infanticide - if you doubt me on this, read Tertullians apologium - there were strong duallist tendencies in early Christianity that were at odds with the Hebrew parent object, Judaism, to the point that procreation itself was deemed to be the work of the devil, extending his impure reign on earth - Christians rushed to martyr themselves in much the same way as Isamic extremists are doing now - a mark of hopelessness. There are numerous hints of this in the Pauline scriptures, and it's the origin of the edicts on priestly celibacy, and detectable in the overall misogynic morality of Catholocism and Christianity. Family values, were a preoccupation of the Italians, who were forever worried that the birth rate was too low, and always passing legislation to encourage marriage - sound familiar? Are Hindus less moral? Bhuddists? Confucians? Taoists? The average Muslim? Who?

NastyDaddy -> RE: Bush administration collars maker fetish films (9/11/2006 3:06:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY To summarize what I think I've been saying in this thread: 1. I first started out by saying that people who rail against Christianity because of all the bad things it members did or does, should be careful and not become the thing that they were condemning. 2. Next, I posited that not every single thing about Christianity was bad. 3. Finally (about where you came in) I was saying that religions have an impact on the societies in which they exist, and different societies and religions fail or succeed based on their interactions. That's the meat of it. Let me know where you take exception. Your views are your views, I'm not at issue with that at all, and of course have my own views as well. In regards to number 3 where I first spoke: I would suggest that at best this mindset does not apply across the board and is suited more towards a not-yet-failed society of larger proportions in which a state religion is a required fundamental of it's citizens within it's society (even those not living inside it's borders). For example, impoverished nations whose citizens are expected to follow what is perceived as the state religion by those in power. This is not a free choice offered to it's citizens, many examples of this phenom exist in middle eastern nations. Does this make their society more prone to success? No, it simply creates an oppressive nation of which to be a citizen. Will the society fail based on the religious oppression? That would depend largely on how many infidels can be tortured and shot in the head on any given dark night when the goon squads come out to enforce the state religion. Sooner or later the citizens will tire of the cycle and revolt. The revolt can come from within or from external sources on the periphery. There are numerous smaller less populated civilizations that prospered and were efficient in their function, often without religious oppression... or no religion at all, until exposed to outsiders who came, destroyed and left, leaving only remnants of their success. Examples would be the Easter Island natives, most African tribes... following their own natural order, unadulterated by "better religions" and the crusaders or missionaries sent to convert the lowly heathens. The tendencies of various religions to kill or destroy other forms (or absences) of religions make them parasitic elements, and not necessarily a measure of a successful society by any respect. This in turn makes it difficult to accept a simple philosophy that a society will achieve success or will fail based simply on any given religion. Those who wish to decide and attempt to control which is the "accepted" religion are more often the cause of the society failing. The true irony being that people are continuously killed or exterminated over religion, which is why I feel religion has no place in the governing process, and should not be constituted as an element of success or failure of any given society. Religious zealotry is often warlord'ish, and typically constitutes the potential ruin of the society it is allowed to operate and manifest itself in as the "accepted" religion... the "right" god for all memebers of the society. This is what distinguishes most modern larger societies from more primitive larger ones. The exclusion of church from state funtions is a key factor in the successes enjoyed by those larger prosperous societies.

Amaros -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/11/2006 3:40:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros I see such claims as an attempt to influence the political -economy away from it's essentially secular/scientific roots - our form of government, economy, and legal system are all predicated and based on secular philosophy and science, albeit in ways *deemed to not conflict strongly with Christian values, and in fact to strengthen it's core values of justice and humility, and attempts to abrogate these in favor of Biblical law, arbitrary and often so vague* not even two Christians can always agree on it - is to advocate tyranny and chaos over the order and justice we have fought to establish and preserve. Two comments from this paragraph. 1. If you accept the proposition that two core values of Christianity are justice and humility, then do you see attempts to strengthen them as a "good thing" or a "bad thing"? 2. Is what you mean when you say "Biblical law" is Old Testament laws? Most (all as far as I know) of Christian traditions believe that the old laws were overcome and made invalid with the arrival af Jesus. In other words, they no longer apply. It's a key belief of what makes a "Christian". Humility, the idea that all men are equal under god, and that god is just - the former being one of the reasons the Christians were persecuted by the Romans - bears some very close similarity to the concept of Rule of Law, wherin all men are equal in the eyes of the law, and I can concede that it perhaps played some role - although the concept itself extends much further back than Christianity - it is then, perhaps a core part of Christian philosophy, but seldom exhibited in praxis, nor was it the Christian hegemony who established it, but secular philosophy. We would agree that this is a good thing, we would not agree that Christians best exemplify or enforce it. Insofar as your second point goes, as you say, Jesus (Yesua) is said to have overturned the Old Law (YHWH) - by some Christians, though not by others, and what is left in the first case is an arbitrary hodepodge of common law and superstition - why for example is anal sex prohibited? The example of Sodom and Gommorah is provided (OT), though of course Sod. and Gom. were destroyed for the sin of idolatry, not sexual excess - this is what "filth" and other imprecations trnaslated into old English, from Greek, from the original Hebrew refer to. No matter, it means sodomy in Christian common law, and that is that, citing the original Hebrew is pissing up a rope. Neither does the Bible anywhere proscribe anal sex between a man and a woman - it says you shall not use a man as you would a woman - which could mean a lot of things, i.e., thou shalt not bitch slap a man, or make him do laundry, all consistent with the way women were used at the time. Now what is to prevent me from making such an interpretation and claiming revelation? Nothing, nothing except whether anybody wants to listen to it or not, and such is Christian law - it's a dead fish, there are the same elements there as are present in the Anglo/Saxon legal system, common law, statutes and case law, but no adversarial mode of appeal save "revelation" and demogaguory, which only changes the law according to individual whim and the times. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros You are free of course, to worship any gods you wish, that's part of it - *a free religion is itself part of the balance of power, providing an independent consensus that can influence government through public opinion* in ways that subjegation to a party line would not allow, and the establishment clause protects and preserves this particular form of consensus formation from political influence. Yup. KnightsOfMist covered that well. quote: ORIGINAL: Amaros Too many Christians, it seems, cannot be satisfied with this, and continue to warp their religion for political gain, they refuse to accept that theocratic hegemony has had it's day - been there, done that, ain't goin' back. "Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesars..." - J.C. Theocratic hegemony hasn't had it's day yet. In the Western world, with Christianity, I'd conditionally argee with you. However, as Iran shows, as a statement about all religions, all cultures and all people, I'd have to disagree with you. Also, I'd say that most of the immediate and harshly negative comments directed about and to Christians and "their attempt to impose theocratic government" is both an overreaction and an demonstratively emotional overreaction. Not based on any reasoned understanding of history, the religion itself, nor the roots of morality and civil society. An interesting sidebar question (which I bring up not to debate, but to pose as an intellectual exercise) is the possiblity of the Islamic conflict spawning a reactionary return to a more primitive Christianity which does seek secular power. While I don't think it's a probability, it is certainly a possibility. I don't think the US is anywhere approaching this possibility. FHky Edited: spelling And I'd say you failed to read the OP - SCOTUS has already established a litmus test for pornography, and ruled in such a way that communities may set public standards they deem desireable - that isn't at issue here, what is at issue is whether government has the ability to set standards for private behavior, between consenting adults - a pornography provider and a pornography consumer exist in a consenting relationship to one another, these lawsuits are designed to push the boundries of community standards out of public and onto your computer and into your home, your bedroom - can you think of any reason for this except to pander to religious fanatics? Rule of law means all are equal under the law, if Christians are to decide what is moral and what is not, what images are suitable for adults to obtain for use inthe privacy of theri own homes, is that not special treatment for Christians? Is it not establishment? I'm sorry, there are already people in prision, paying fines, and having their homes and all their belongings confiscated - you don't think the US is anywhere approaching this possibility, and so I'm "demonstratively" overreacting? I am an artist, I produce pornographic and erotic images for fun and profit and to realize that profit, I have to distribute my work - I'd say my concerns are demonstrably justifiable. Congress has the right to regulate commerce, not to prohibit it, without clear evidence of innate justifiable harm to public safety - such as preventing sex education. Guns and cars can be deadly in the hands of unsupervised children, and we don't take those away from everybody. Talk about yer nanny states...

farglebargle -> RE: Bash Christianity! (9/11/2006 3:45:02 PM)
Wow.. That's a lot to digest. Let me offer only this. "Original Sin" is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875