xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 25, 2011 10:52:23 GMT -5
@shane
Are you not splitting hairs over a capitalisation or non capitalisation of church/Church? Actually, the poll at the head of the thread uses the word church in a non capitalised way.
My dictionary (an American one) tells me that church is a building indeed. Then it goes on to say it is a "Formal organization for the maintenance and dissemination of religious truth..."
However, I would certainly capitalise the word only when referring to a specific church, viz the Catholic Church; the Anglican Church; and in that context, when the adjective/determinant is not required, the 'Church', still having a specific Church (see what I've done?) in mind and/or remaining in context. Modern American usage may have shifted, given that the dictionary is not exactly new.
Let us not fall out over upper or lower case. In either case the meaning is clear enough.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 25, 2011 10:18:34 GMT -5
@ Shane
I have yet to find a church without religion. And as far as Christianity is concerned, I have never found religion without a church - not saying it's impossible, but didn't Jesus the arch- religionist Jesus say:"Upon this rock I will found my church"?
Church and religion, an inseparable symbiosis.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 25, 2011 9:57:58 GMT -5
Smarmy chubby chappie winding up a blonde, looking remarkably like Barbie, who fulfills all the stereotypes (to my way of thinking) at least in the sense that she does not subscribe to freedom of speech - some attorney! And a brunette who is trying hard to speak some sense but being overtalked by blonde.
A fair synopsis?
They may start living in the real world one day - with luck.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 25, 2011 8:30:01 GMT -5
Without sarcasm or being a total prick, let me ask: has not religion been in search of power since the early middle ages? What about Pope Gregory VII who made an emperor stand in the snows in Canossa and then, when he (the Pope) judged that the emperor had been sufficiently humbled, welcomed him into the warmth of the castle and treated him as an erring child.
What are the super (actually I originally mistyped 'duper' - a Freudian slip indeed!) churches seeking? Souls that will fulfill their political aspirations, and money - power of a different currency.l
Who exercised power in a very corrupt way? The church in Ireland, which was, in effect, a state within the state, and at every turn manipulated the outer workings of the state. It introduced a Catholic form of puritanism, introducing rigid censorship, causing the banning of literature and art; driving writers and artists abroad to have freedom of expression. This same church protected and enabled paedophile priests, keeping them out of the hands of the law which, being so controlled by the church anyway, turned a blind eye to what they knew was going on. Parents, the result of Catholic education (Mind-control) would not believe their children when told by them they had been molested by Fr. whoever. And let us not forget the hypocritical Magdalene Laundries, which were a form of slavery and servitude for the unfortunate women who fell into their clutches. The state knew of this and colluded! The Irish Constitution, shadow written by the overweening archbishop of Dublin, that awarded a special consideration to the Catholic Church. Happily these things are now history, and the Catholic church in Ireland is a chastened body that has been deserted by vast numbers who have managed to shake off the brain-washing and start to think for themselves.
In Northern Ireland, set up as a protestant state for a protestant people, the likes of the Reverend Ian Paisley based his power on maintaining the alienation and exclusion from any say in government (gerrymandering of votes) of one third of the the population (Catholic), a substantial minority, and in so doing led to 35 years of violence and horrific bombings. Again, happily religion is no longer controlling the situation - possibly because the demography is rapidly changing to a 50%/50% point of balance. Sanity demands a reasonable settlement or civil war would result.
Beyond Ireland, science was muzzled. In Italy Galileo Galliei was a victim of the Inquisition, spending his latter days under house arrest for daring to think independently. He was lucky to escape the flames.
Just a few examples, but need I continue...? How is it not possible to see that religion is a stultifying force that does seek power and will manipulate and wriggle through truth and logic to achive its end.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 21, 2011 17:33:25 GMT -5
I'm gay. I'm 68. I have been gay since my first sexual stirring. It has in a major way defined who I am and my position in society, to such an extent that at this stage of my life it would be impossible for me to envisage being anything other than I am.
I am sane, caring and loving; industrious, even though retired; I am creative, in writing, music and other areas. My IQ is fairly high and I did well in school and in my work/career. I achieved. And I achieved as a gay man living initially in a fairly hostile world. Happily that has mostly changed so that I am 'out' and living openly with my partner of almost 40 years in a small village (300 souls) in France. We are accepted and welcomed as who we are.
Undoubtedly it was often a struggle to cope with the generally accepted homophobia of my earlier years, and pehaps at that time I might even have welcomed a 'cure'. The position now, however, is that I can now see that as an escape from who I really was/am. Who and what I am I have built on the basis that I am gay. I had no choice in that condition, but I made of it what I could. Having invested so much in making a go of my life, in spite of what was a bad trick of fate, I would feel that to seek a 'cure' at this stage would be a betrayal of all those who helped me (both gays and straights) to the reasonable succeess that my life has been. I would also be abandoning the emotional ties and attachments to my partner and the friends that I have valued over most of my life. In effect, I would be becoming a fraud, ultimately living a lie. No pill now available, or presently conceivable, would be able to make the adjustments a changeover to heterosexuality would demand. It is a price I could not pay. Who and what I am does not even permit it.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 12, 2011 9:15:45 GMT -5
Hell, I pay the lady who looks after my house Euro 12.50 an hour. She get 5 weeks off a year (holidays) and is paid for them too. OK, she only works 4 hours per week. But the principle is there. If she works extra time, she gets paid for it too.
Most of the EU states have 5 weeks holidays, as far as I am aware.
Doesn't America realise that a happy workforce is far more productive? Of course if you think that having so much time for holidays is filthy socialism... Then suffer on!
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 7, 2011 11:51:09 GMT -5
M52nickerson,
Actually, from my reading of the gospel text it is quite unclear (intentionally, I believe) as to whom Pilate handed Jesus over. The context seems to imply that it is the Jews. And that is what the gospels writers probably wanted us to understand. When the gospels were being written Jesus had been dead a long time and it was politic to shift blame from the Romans to the Jews. It is only in very recent times that there has been a revision of this view, placing the blame back on the Romans' shoulders, which is indeed the proper place for it to rest. The Jews did not have the right of execution under the Romans. Besides, their preferred punishment was lapidation.
For all that, the gospels portray Pilate, quite deliberately, as seeking to have Jesus exculpated. And we must take them as we find them. We do not have the right to change them to say something they do not mean to say - however untrue/unfactual we may regard what they say. We are dealing with a religious text, not history.
History, as opposed to the new testament, shows Pilate to have been a bloody monster.
So with due respect, I will, with your indulgence, stand by my previous posting, although I agree that the Gospels' picture of Pilate is deliberately slanted. Still that is no reason not to call what is said in scripture in support of my argument since we are on religious rather than historical ground.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 7, 2011 10:06:22 GMT -5
It's a truism that a country gets the government it deserves.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 7, 2011 10:02:25 GMT -5
"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says" (1 Cor. 14:34).
This woman is setting herself up as someone who foretells the future and also is directly in contravention of the quote above. But worst of all she has a whiney voice. I think she is a witch, and we all know what the Holy Bible says about that! Besides, King James was of the firm opinion that witches caused storms and disasters... See what I have done?
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 7, 2011 9:53:43 GMT -5
Debatable. St. John's Gospel says: "... Then delivered he him unto them to be crucified." This follows hard on the heels of: "And from thenceforth pilate sought to release him..." It does not in any sense say he (Pilate) condemned Jesus directly. I construe this as a lack of action being the cause of Jesus's crucifixion - which followed as a consequence of Pilate's vacillation. Again, a cause followed by a consequence. Pilate's position is reprehensible in his distancing himself from what was to follow. Draw the parallels for yourself...
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 7, 2011 8:29:04 GMT -5
[/quote]Goes to motive. Is his intent to incite Muslims to violence because he wants them to kill people? Or does he want to incite Muslims to violence to highlight how fucking insane and irrational Muslim extremists are?
One could say that one is a valid intention.[/quote]
It is naive, especially in the light of what has already happened, to think that putting the Prophet Muhammed 'on trial' would not have pretty similar results. Such an action would be provocative in the extreme. It makes just about as much sense as putting the Prophet Jesus on 'trial'.
All mobs are irrational and insane. They can do things that their constituents probably would never do as individuals. If this 'trial' were to go ahead it would be irrationally inflammatory and would carry consequences. Consequences are the results of a cause.
The argument that Jones is innocent of the deaths in Afghanistan is reminiscent of Pontius Pilate's claim of innocence. He condemned, but never touched the whips, the nails, the cross, so no fault or guilt there. But someone is alleged to have died...
Jones's action, however great the distancing, had the effect of a condemnation. And to show how innocent he was, he now proceeds to this so-called 'trial'. One tries hard to avoid the conclusion that the man is making mischief for his country and others.
And this may well rebound on America and Americans over time. Unfortunately Europeans are unlikely to escape any backlash. Fundamentalist religion of whatever denomination or creed is a curse on the face of the planet.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 7, 2011 7:31:01 GMT -5
My advice to rational Americans: Flee for your safety and sanity's sake! The Fundies are getting bolder by the minute. Next week the Inquisition! Next month Pagani ad Bestias! Flee for your lives! Pray that the FSM will dangle his noodly appendages that will draw you to meet him into the skies and bring you to Pastadise.
Seriously, this woman seems to have some kind of mental warping that isolates her into her own world of sexual prudery combined with religious mania; and equally isolates her from reality.
If it were not for the possibility of damage to a serious work of art, she would be laughable.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 5, 2011 4:10:09 GMT -5
'Perfectly said'. If this is supposed to excuse people from the consequences of their words and actions it is totally lacking in any morality. The actions of this alleged man of god led to loss of life. It was a fairly foregone conclusion that it would. the only question was when and where. His was not the hand that wielded the knife or gun, but his action, in its premeditation, aided and abetted those who needed only a shred of an excuse to kill. Consequently, morally to a degree he shares guilt with the actual killers, for his words and actions gave them the comfort of believing that it was condign and proper to kill 'blasphemous' westerners. He was morally an enabler of the slaughter. It is a dead conscience that can live with the results of this nature caused, however indirectly by a an unnecessary and gross misuse of freedom of speech. It is, moreover, a naive, irresponsible use of freedom of speech when its consequences were clearly likely to be so dire. Responsibility is the concommittant of all freedoms. Only a child would argue otherwise.
My sympathies and condolences go to the families and loved ones who have been so cruelly bereaved.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 4, 2011 13:44:15 GMT -5
@ smurfetteprinciple
Actually, Civil |Partnerships are now in force. The first two men to avail of this new legislation are being partnered tomorrow in Dublin. They were on Irish TV's main Saturday night chat show last Sat evening. There were two or three other gay couples in the audience who are being partnered shortly. Obviously the first couple were the main centre of interest. Their slot on the show lasted for about 20 minutes. It was very well received across the country.
As a side note, my partner and I will be going to Ireland in September to get our process rolling. The legislation requires an interval of 3 months between giving notice of intent in person at the Registrar's Office and the actual ceremony. That would take us up to Christmas, and travel in Europe at that time can be tricky - witness the airport snow-closures on and off over a 7 week period from November last. After waiting for so long for this, we can wait until spring.
|
|
xotan
Full Member
Posts: 112
|
Post by xotan on Apr 4, 2011 12:45:18 GMT -5
By all means exercise freedom of speech regardless of the probable consequences; and not a hint of arrogance in failing to recognise that American mullahs lit the fuse that exploded in Afghanistan. The common factor is that rationality is absent in both situations/religions. It takes a lot of ignorance of Islamic fundamentalism to avoid the conclusion that a Koran burning in America is almost certain to provoke a vicious reaction somewhere in the Islamic world. And indeed the Afghani mullahs whipped up the violence.
But you cannot stop your reasoning at that point. They did so because what happened half a world away gave them what they considered justification.
The analogy to 'short skirts' and rape is entirely inappropriate. Those who were killed had done no wrong whatsoever. Nor had they done anything to antagonise the religious fundamentalists. There was no provocation on their part that I am aware of. They were entirely innocent victims. The provocation took place in America by a mullah equally as irrational in his beliefs as any in Afghanistan. That irresponsible exercise in free speech à l'américaine provided the flimsy excuse that was all that was needed. It needed no crystal ball to foresee that something along the lines of what happened would be likely somewhere in Islamic world.
|
|