Hard News: Deriving satisfaction from the misfortune of others
137 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
Yes the Voltaire view sounds OK to me. I'm not a fan of B Tamaki or any fundamentalist religion, but looking at it completely objectively you would have to admit:
The self riighteousness of any group is dwarfed by the self riighteousness of the political left.
-
On defining values with Destiny, there's a lovely moment toward the end of this clip from EML's coverage of the Destiny "family values" march last year, in which Jeremy asks a participant his opinion on the "best and worst family values".
-
but looking at it completely objectively you would have to admit:
The self riighteousness of any group is dwarfed by the self riighteousness of the political left.
Not much that's objective about that, except for perhaps the fact that the political left dwarfs every other group.
-
I have always understood "Judeo-Christian" to be more of a reference to the historical origins of a religion. Islam, for example, has Judeo-Christian origins whereas Hinduism doesn't.
-
Unfortunately the road to hell really is paved with good intentions
-
I have always understood "Judeo-Christian" to be more of a reference to the historical origins of a religion. Islam, for example, has Judeo-Christian origins whereas Hinduism doesn't.
Right, but would you think people who use the term intend to include Islam?
I still reckon it's one of those phrases which attempts by it's very connotation to say something, whilst masquerading as a fairly neutral term. They could have just said Christian, but they very carefully don't. And I think it's especially careful that Islam is left out, despite the common origins. Sneaky, but word-war always is.
-
I have always understood "Judeo-Christian" to be more of a reference to the historical origins of a religion. Islam, for example, has Judeo-Christian origins whereas Hinduism doesn't.
That was my understanding too. The term doesn't need to be so loaded. Judeo-Christian ideas are woven into the fabric of everyday life in ways that a lot of us are probably not even aware of.
But I can see where Stephen Judd was coming from with this:
Yes, they are a rhetorical strategy for the American fundamentalist Christian right to disarm the Jews, who historically have been active in insisting on enforcing the constitutional separation of church and state.
It must be annoying for Jewish people to be co-opted into the values of the American fundamentalist Christian right.
-
Unfortunately the road to hell really is paved with good intentions
So's the road to heaven. So don't look at the cobblestones, read the signs.
-
On Judeo-Christianity - I believe that Christianity was invented by 4th Century Romans as an attempt to bring social control to a collapsing empire. The Roman cults and religions didn't achieve this - people could just find themselves a cult and priest that they liked.
The Romans saw Judaism as a religion that imposed a hierarchy and a set of rules on its followers. Rather than adopt it directly, they invented "Judaism 2.0" as the new religion for the empire. They got their scribes to make up some great stories and invent a ficticious leader character "Christ". Tellingly, they made sure that the religion established a leadership that they could control and a doctrine that butressed their power.
It didn't really work for the Romans - but it did work out excellently for subsequent rulers from Charlemagne to Tony Blair.
Ok, so I have no evidence for this - but there's very little for the accepted view of religious history either.
-
So much to work with, where to begin...
Personally I'd like to know how "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" fits into the Christian political programme.
Actually, this was Jesus' prescient response to a version of today's cry "it's our money". Ceasar, IIRC, was not of Judeo-Christian persuasion.
Judeo-Christian
is a neo-Con term to disassociate with Islam. In evolutionary terms is Islam not more "advanced" whilst Judeo-Christians represent the dinosaurs?
The self riighteousness of any group is dwarfed by the self riighteousness of the political left.
Yeah riiight. I thought "the left" were supposed be craven, guilt ridden, apologists.
Finally to Danyl and an attempt to tie it all together:
I have trouble with all the capital letters mid - command. Good thing biShop taMaki never learNed to code.
God Save Us from Biologists who think they can program. That was always my problem reading "The Blind Watchmaker" - I kept wanting to scream - that program is so fscked.
-
... or maybe someone told him that writing everything in all CAPS was really like shouting and he should tone it down a bit ...
Actually, I can inform readers that the Destiny releases actually came in IN ALL CAPS. The Scoop operative in question felt the best readability-to-time-fixing ratio was to title case the whole thing.
-
It must be annoying for Jewish people to be co-opted into the values of the American fundamentalist Christian right.
If they get to keep Israel powerful, maybe it's not such a big price to pay. Only the Jews that don't want Israel (or at least not at the cost it currently incurs) get annoyed.
It's a bit like the alliance between Maori and human rights organizations. Maori leadership probably would not freely choose to organize their society along lines that human rights organizations would approve of at all, but if they get their land back it is well worth paying lip service.
-
If they get to keep Israel powerful, maybe it's not such a big price to pay. Only the Jews that don't want Israel (or at least not at the cost it currently incurs) get annoyed.
My reading is that that alliance is a highly contentious issue in the community, for that reason and others.
-
Scotland produces the world's best in two fields...
Rugby isn't one of them.Jeremy wins! Normally I'd let it run a bit longer, but I needed to get this one done. Jeremy, email me with a delivery address.
Everyone else can feel free to keep trying for next week's fine whisky from our sponsors.
-
My reading is that that alliance is a highly contentious issue in the community, for that reason and others.
Indeed. I wouldn't want to wade into that one myself. I am nowhere near informed enough. I only joined in this conversation to
agree with Felix about the definition of "Judeo-Christian". -
__"If they get to keep Israel powerful, maybe it's not such a big price to pay. Only the Jews that don't want Israel (or at least not at the cost it currently incurs) get annoyed."
My reading is that that alliance is a highly contentious issue in the community, for that reason and others.__
Those reasons presumably including the fact that the Dispensationalist future narrative doesn't wind up too well for the Jews. Having hosted the final battle, they're faced with the choice of (a) converting, or (b) getting creamed.
-
Jeremy wins!
OMG!! I never win anything!! <runs around field with shirt over head>
-
For those hardy few who haven't already switched off the schism soap opera, the latest twist is that Philip is with Richard and Brian and not with Gordon and Larry:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00280.htm
But it turns out that gauche Gordon is just an act. He's actually been working undercover for Helen Clark all this time. The proof:
To this end, Pacific supporters of Taito Phillip Field have held back from registering a Pacific Party and signing up members as a commitment to this agreement.
Join the dots, people. Who would want to kill that party? Yeah, you got it. Damn, she is smart.
(This conspiracy theory was brought to you by Kiwiblog, all rights reserved).
-
<blockquote>But it turns out that gauche Gordon is just an act</blockquote>
I've been wondering this for a day or so now, well actually, I've been wondering if he's really an actor playing some elaborate role, or some sort of performace artist even.
'Cos he sure aint no politician.
-
Christian values. I, for instance, am bitter on slavery just like Christians have always been (with individual aberrations of
Where do people get the idea that Christians have always been opposed to slavery? Or that the USA is in any way more culpable than any other country? England, Belgium, Spain, France, Portugal... there are many countries whose fortunes were built on slavery.
In Hugh Thomas's massive historical book The Slave Trade he writes:
__There is no record in the 17th century of any preacher who, in any sermon, whether in the Cathedral of Saint-Andre in Bordeaux or in a Presbyterian meeting house in Liverpool, condemnded the trade in black slaves. La Rochelle and Nantes were far apart in the matters of religion, but they were as one on the benefits of trade in slaves__
And: (in reference to isolated condemnations of slavery from Fray Francisco de la Cruz, a Domincan friar, Frei Miguel Garcia, a Jesuit that fell on the very deaf ears of their superiors) Thomas writes:
__These isolated denunciations enable the Catholic Church to present itself as a prefigurement of the abolitionist movement.__
In Alexander Von Humboldt's book Travels and Research he estimates the value of gold and siver mined from the Americas by slaves between 1499 and 1802 at 1,248,340,625.00 pounds sterling. This refers to the value of the gold and silver on the early 19thC market - of course the figure would be many times that amount in today's markets.
There is no estimate of the number of slaves that it took to mine this gold, but he does describe, with horror, the mining projects would descend on a village, enslave all the men and boys in the mine, the women and children would die from hunger, the entire tribe would be wiped out and they would move to a new village to repeat the process. Humboldt wrote that he could not begin to estimate how many tribes or how many individuals perished this way, but he does observe that most of the gold and silver to be found in any church has been found at massive human cost and involved the deaths of many slaves.
I can't help thinking those who reject the idea of inherited guilt should also reject the idea of inherited wealth.
-
Where do people get the idea that Christians have always been opposed to slavery?
OK, perhaps I was inspecific. They were originally against it, then for it, then against it again. Whereas some religions have never been against it.
-
Where do people get the idea that Christians have always been opposed to slavery?
OK, perhaps I was inspecific. They were originally against it, then for it, then against it again. Whereas some religions have never been against it.
Why do you think Christians were originaly against slavery?
-
(i'm too new at this to attempt to link to it but someone might help a brother out?)
Andy - I just managed to make my first link and as a non techie the steam was coming out my ears by the end. Here's an explanation- I'm sure the experts do it better.
Copy and paste the text beside 'link' to the left of the 'Post a reply..' window, as below.
[([url|link text]]
Please note I've popped an extra parenthesis in above to stop the text changing when it's posted to the site. Just ignore it.
Delete the three letters 'url' and then copy and paste the address into that space. Then delete the words 'link text' and type in the words you want (eg. Colin Espiner) into that space.
Click' Preview' to test whether it's worked or not. Good luck!
-
They were originally against it, then for it, then against it again.
No, Christianity wasn't originally against slavery. Christianity was for slavery until it started shucking off bronze age morals. Just like everybody else.
-
My goodness. Disable Adblock Plus for a one-time look at PA and it lights up like a Christmas tree! Whodathought?
Heh. I'll remember you to my children when they don't get any Christmas presents because Daddy didn't sell enough ad impressions this year ....
Post your response…
This topic is closed.