Shbobdb posted:

Straight to the character assassination.

It's a common refuge. Go for it. Have fun.

Shbobdb posted:

Straight to the character assassination.

It's a common refuge. Go for it. Have fun.

Brainiac Five posted:

The obvious explanation for why religious people would be more traditional is that religion is traditional and atheism is not, and nowhere has mass atheism been a phenomenon long enough to become traditional and thus for conservatives to flock to it. But this would suggest that religion is ultimately a neutral force rather than an absolutely good or bad one, and most people would rather not think in such a ternary logic.

Shbobdb posted:

At worst, my activities round down to zero.

Republicans do very real harm every day, as "truth is in the middle, both parties are the same" folks like you are being so forcefully reminded in the current administration.

Shbobdb posted:

You don't think "conservative" ought apply to ancient institutions resistant to change?

Jesus, via Matthew 43 - 48 posted:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you salute only your brethren, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Nude Bog Lurker posted:

you cast your vote in 2012 in a way that you knew would make the election of a republican more likely

by your completely retarded calculus, the most centrist Obama in 2012 is more moral than you can ever be

Shbobdb posted:

NYC wasn't going to not go Obama.

But letting the centrist Dems know that they can't take my vote for granted is an important message. If they had heeded that lesson in '16 and tried to energize their leftist base as opposed to appealing to Republican suburbanites, they would have won.

Brainiac Five posted:

I think rigged questions are one of the few good arguments for the death penalty.

Nude Bog Lurker posted:

people who vote (or don't vote) to empower republicans are fundamentally evil though???

Shbobdb posted:

Just people who vote Republican. Not voting is bad but not evil.

It's not hard.

Shbobdb posted:

Seriously though, do some research. It isn't leftism that's hostile to religion, it's religion that's hostile to leftism. In America, as Churches go left their membership declines. "Adapt and die" is a very real phenomenon.

Shbobdb posted:

We need non voters because they are redeemable. It's not that hard to figure out. Republican voters, on the other hand, should be executed.

Shbobdb posted:

Nothing immoral about smashing the olds and removing reactionaries through violent class struggle.

Shbobdb posted:

How am I helping get Trump elected?

Obama '08 was still better than McCain '08 (downticket votes were anti-Republican Dems since I was living in Indiana at the time and while centrist Dems are bad, Republicans of any stripe are an existential threat to the country)

Peta Lindsay '12 was better than Obama '12 and Romney '12 (downticket votes were for lefty single issue stuff like Rent is Too drat High and Juan Bosch legacy since I was in a Dominican neighborhood in the Brox. Juan Bosch is a cool dude and Trujillio is a bad dude so supporting his legacy was cool).

Your lady is aiming for good but so what? She's actively doing evil.

Shbobdb posted:

why not stand for something?

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

You're really, really, really stretching here.

Shbobdb posted:

It isn't leftism that's hostile to religion, it's religion that's hostile to leftism. In America, as Churches go left their membership declines. "Adapt and die" is a very real phenomenon.

Shbobdb posted:

I agree, the individual is quite powerless. That's why it's important for the groups we join as individuals to not be those that actively aid and support evil.

If you join institutions that support xenophobia, wars of choice, racism and economic injustice you are supporting evil. You are evil.

Cingulate posted:

This one read more like a weirdly sex-negative thing to me than allowing men to cheat on their wives.

Not Jesus' words. Also, there's probably a bunch of context. I assume this was aimed at slaves within Roman cities, whose lives were often fairly decent.
Not to say this one is a paragraph I sympathize with. Ultimately, it seems to come from a very quietist spirit of converting people to the faith while curtailing the social and political aspects, to the extent that even the fact of slavery is tacitly tolerated.

Obama drone striked a bunch of weddings. Assuming you voted for Obama, do I get to put these on your bill?

And again, what ethical system are you coming from?

Bolocko posted:

This is more complicated, and the Christianity thread was just talking about this very thing the other day. Go check it out. In the meantime, one quick reason for declining membership is that liberalizing churches, in the name of disrupting some old order, tend to also adopt very bad aesthetics in addition to watering down the Christian message. And by watering down I mean stuff like "I'm OK, you're OK, we're all OK; I mean we're sinners, sure, but we're OK. We love everyone! Here's a sports analogy!"​ all relayed in a room that looks like a cafeteria with pews.

Shbobdb posted:

So you end up with a toothless institution unable to enact positive change.

Why should we try to rehabilitate it?

RasperFat posted:

Shbobdb posted:

I agree, the individual is quite powerless. That's why it's important for the groups we join as individuals to not be those that actively aid and support evil.

Bolocko posted:

This is more complicated, and the Christianity thread was just talking about this very thing the other day. Go check it out. In the meantime, one quick reason for declining membership is that liberalizing churches, in the name of disrupting some old order, tend to also adopt very bad aesthetics in addition to watering down the Christian message. And by watering down I mean stuff like "I'm OK, you're OK, we're all OK; I mean we're sinners, sure, but we're OK. We love everyone! Here's a sports analogy!"​ all relayed in a room that looks like a cafeteria with pews.

Shbobdb posted:

They'd be better off putting down their bibles, staying away from their congregations and doing pretty much anything else.

Shbobdb posted:

Renouncing their reactionary views in struggle sessions has prevented and hopefully will prevent unnecessary deaths.

Advances in agriculture will also help prevent some of the more regrettable episodes.

Norman Borlaug posted:

Civilization as it is known today could not have evolved, nor can it survive, without an adequate food supply. Yet food is something that is taken for granted by most world leaders despite the fact that more than half of the population of the world is hungry. Man seems to insist on ignoring the lessons available from history.

Man's survival, from the time of Adam and Eve until the invention of agriculture, must have been precarious because of his inability to ensure his food supply. During the long, obscure, dimly defined prehistoric period when man lived as a wandering hunter and food gatherer, frequent food shortages must have prevented the development of village civilizations. Under these conditions the growth of human population was also automatically limited by the limitations of food supplies.

...

That such catastrophes occurred periodically in ancient times is amply clear from numerous biblical references. Thus, the Lord said: "I have smitten you with blasting and mildew."2 "The seed is rotten under their clods, the garners are laid desolate, the barns are broken down; for the corn is withered... The beasts of the field cry also unto thee: for the rivers of waters are dried up, and the fire hath devoured the pastures of the wilderness."3

Plant diseases, drought, desolation, despair were recurrent catastrophes during the ages - and the ancient remedies: supplications to supernatural spirits or gods. And yet, the concept of the "ever-normal granary" appeared in elementary form, as is clear from Pharaoh's dreams and Joseph's interpretation of imminent famine and his preparation for it, as indicated by this quotation from Genesis: "...And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said: and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread..."4 For his time, Joseph was wise, with the help of his God.

But today we should be far wiser; with the help of our Gods and our science, we must not only increase our food supplies but also insure them against biological and physical catastrophes by international efforts to provide international granaries of reserve food for use in case of need. And these food reserves must be made available to all who need them - and before famine strikes, not afterwards. Man can and must prevent the tragedy of famine in the future instead of merely trying with pious regret to salvage the human wreckage of the famine, as he has so often done in the past. We will be guilty of criminal negligence, without extenuation, if we permit future famines. Humanity cannot tolerate that guilt.

...

Since man is potentially a rational being, however, I am confident that within the next two decades he will recognize the self-destructive course he steers along the road of irresponsible population growth and will adjust the growth rate to levels which will permit a decent standard of living for all mankind. If man is wise enough to make this decision and if all nations abandon their idolatry of Ares, Mars, and Thor, then Mankind itself should be the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize which is "to be awarded to the person who has done most to promote brotherhood among the nations".

Then, by developing and applying the scientific and technological skills of the twentieth century for "the well-being of mankind throughout the world", he may still see Isaiah's prophesies come true: "... And the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose... And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water..."

And may these words come true!

Bolocko posted:

Please note also that while religious liberal/conservative and American political liberal/conservative categories often overlap, they are very different things.

Cingulate posted:

I'm not sure I get what point exactly you're making. I see my argument didn't convince you, but what exactly would you say? That the Bible is pro-slavery? That Jesus was?

Shbobdb posted:

Nothing immoral about smashing the olds and removing reactionaries through violent class struggle.

Bolocko posted:

I agreed to no such thing.

Shbobdb posted:

So you think that despite liberal churches failing hard, somehow the church as an institution isn't conservative? I'm not sure how to square that circle.

RasperFat posted:

I was responding to an assertion that Christianity was the impetus for abolition.

RasperFat posted:

I was responding to an assertion that Christianity was the impetus for abolition. I was arguing that isn't the case, and it's kind of bullshit to imply that when Christianity was a pillar holding up institutional slavey in the West.

I would actually say that the Bible is definitely pro-slavery. There is a mountain of textual and historical evidence that supports this. By extension, Jesus was also an enabler of slavery. He had many opportunities to speak out against the evils of slavery, but didn't. He also supported the traditions of the Hebrew people, despite explicitly changing some practices, like sacrifices. I wouldn't say Jesus was going around promoting the enslavement of people, but he certainly didn't seem to be against it either.

Cingulate posted:

Well that the Bible is not explicitly abolitionist doesn't show the Bible can't have inspired the abolitionists right? The Bible also doesn't mention stem cell research after all, and IIRC it's actually pretty quiet on the abortion thing.

quote:

In our case, murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in the seed.

- Apologia 9.6

Cingulate posted:

I would say Norman Borlaug was a better man than Lenin.
What do you say?