When you think about it, living in a theocracy wouldn't be so bad

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > When you think about it, living in a theocracy wouldn't be so bad

«‹›2 »

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Good to see all the sick and innovative new burns on Christians in this thread, 5'd and subscribed

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 16:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:33

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

The biblical knowledge by some Christians in this thread is shockingly bad. Between the guy who claimed the KJV is the authoritative bible, the guy claiming adoption is sick because the biological mother isn't raising the child, and this guy trying to resurrect Just War theory, I'm starting to suspect they're trying to make Christianity look bad on purpose.

When you've got atheists defending the peacefulness and inclusivity of Jesus' message, it's hardly a "burn Christianity" thread.

Case in point:

When you're sinless like Jesus, then you get to beat up sinners like Jesus did. It's hilarious that earlier in the thread when we pointed out God was cool with performing abortions so He obviously didn't consider it murder we get "Oh but just because it's okay for God to do doesn't mean it's okay for you to do" but when Jesus specifically commanded us to turn the other cheek suddenly it's "Oh well God didn't do that himself so we don't have to either, gently caress what Jesus commanded."

I, too, have read The God Delusion and watched several Christopher Hitchens debates

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 17:34

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

There's no justification for the demand that contemporary believers deeply understand 2,000-year-old teachings. The Christian faith has changed a lot since then. Sorry, kid.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 17:40

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

If you don't think Jesus' message was timeless and you don't want to follow Christianity, then don't.

I don't understand this attempt to twist the Gospels into supporting war and violence. Like, if you really want to fight endless wars and stone harlots, gays, and undesirables, Christianity isn't for you. But luckily there's a tailor-made philosophy that does everything you want: it's called fascism. Just go be that.

I think you are failing to grasp my point. For Christians, the essence of Jesus's teachings is timeless. But there's a pretty steep curve that you need to apply due to many centuries of social progress. That's why Christians don't logically need to justify antiquated, or seemingly barbarous, first-century beliefs.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 17:47

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Is it fascism yet posted:

Jesus beat up a jewish merchant in front of the temple. Some sholars think that his followers may have been bodyguards with sticks, because there are multiple occasions where someone wants to get through to him (a samaritan woman, children) and is stopped by force.

Jesus is not a Pacifist.

For most people, pacifism is a stance on war or large-scale conflict, not isolated incidents of physical violence.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 17:49

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

No one in this thread is asking them to. Seriously, read this page: it's certain Christians trying to say that Jesus supports some idiosyncratic barbarous beliefs that they happen to hold and atheists saying "No, Jesus said the opposite of that"

So you're telling Christians that they don't need to understand the fine points of the Gospel and then lambasting them for not understanding the fine points of the Gospel. Cool.

There's nothing wrong with Christians interpreting Jesus's teachings so as to fit modern morality.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 17:52

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Is it fascism yet posted:

Violence as a politic measure? Jesus doesn't say a lot about that. Nothing, really.

It's obvious from his decision not to incite violent rebellion that he was a pacifist

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 17:55

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

What? No I am saying that if you want to use the Gospel to support some position, you do in fact have to understand the Gospel. Claiming that you should be able to use the Gospel to justify whatever you want but it's off limits to have that interpretation challenged is ridiculous. Why are you being ridiculous?

You have to understand the way in which the Bible should be interpreted by a modern audience. Most Christians know how to do this.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:02

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Rich white American/European college kids are the only people who oppose some form of just war theory.

Jobless liberal arts graduates also fall into this category.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:07

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Saying "some Christians in this thread are posting stupid poo poo" is not the same as saying most Christians in the world don't know how to do something. You're tilting at windmills.

Not everyone is going to interpret Jesus's teachings the same way. Morality is relative, dude.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:11

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Jesus also told you that if someone steals from you to give him more. That's not a realistic demand and Christian politicians generally don't follow that, but it's in there. Sorry you don't like what Jesus said about stuff, but that's not really my fault.

Haha, yeah. I bet he literally believed that, and was not making a more sophisticated point.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:16

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Is it fascism yet posted:

Pacifism, specifically liberal hippie pacifism, is the leftist way of saying "gently caress you got mine"

It's easy to play world peace when you're in a well protected fortress of prosperity, damning those outside it to fmine and war.

I am glad that we agree on this front. The Iraq War was a actually good idea.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:16

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Effectronica posted:

What I'm getting from this is that Christians alone, or perhaps theists if I am generous, have a stricter scrutiny applied to their adherence to moral doctrines. Why not apply the same level of scrutiny towards atheistic utilitarians, or nihilists?

Because for young passionate atheists like VitalSigns it's easy to pick on religious believers and it feeds their ego.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:19

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

I'm trying to defend Christianity here, man. Maybe your problem is with trolls like Is It Fascism Yet who are trying to claim that war is good and Jesus was a bigot.

The historical Jesus was a bigot by our standards. That says nothing of the theological Jesus. Also war is often good. I don't know why you bolded Is it fascism yet's name but he is right on all counts. Hope this helps.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:27

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Little Blackfly posted:

Or again, the whole argument of this thread being that the timeless revelatory nature of the bible and the moral incorruptibility of those schooled in its wisdom being a reason to hand temporal power to them.

If Christians are to be consistent with the core tenets of their faith then they absolutely should want to live in a theocracy, and it's their right to make it a reality. In theory there's nothing wrong with theocracy; there have been some bad ones but there have also been some pretty good ones.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:32

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Little Blackfly posted:

None I would want to live in personally, but that probably has something to do with my status as a minority who would be almost guaranteed persecution.

And how is it a Christian's right to make theocracy a reality? Or do I have a right to oppose them? Because again, an anti clerical purge sounds pretty good right about now.

It's their right to make it a reality insofar as, in theory, the emergence of a theocratic state wouldn't significantly infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to oppose them just as you have the right to oppose any other form of government with whose principles you disagree.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:40

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Was serious?! Haha okay, I'll just be charitable and assume that your support of imperialism is a piss-poor troll attempting to make Christians look bad. Either way though I'm just gonna stop responding to you.

I'm not Christian, but anyone who is/was ideologically opposed to the Iraq War - I'm not talking about the propaganda surrounding it, the execution, or the outcome - is at best ignorant and at worst morally monstrous. Hussein caused around a million deaths in a span of 24 years, committed genocide against the Kurds, invaded Iran, invaded and annexed Kuwait, created a monumental environmental catastrophe with the Kuwaiti oil fires, funded terrorists in the Levant, attempted to acquire ballistic missiles from North Korea, and insisted (even if at the time he lacked the ability to do so) that he would one day acquire nuclear weaponry. You could forget about half these feats and the remaining list would still constitute one of the most prolifically appalling regimes in history. You have no excuse for hiding behind phrases like "support of imperialism" when you dispute the moral and political legitimacy of the campaign against him.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 18:57

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

I, too, call myself a leftist while slapping the imperialism label on military intervention in a impoverished and highly stratified society run by the governmental equivalent of a mafia family, the dictatorial head of which kills around 30,000 people a year.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 19:08

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Hey guys, the Iraq War was justified because <list of reasons that had jack and poo poo to do with why America invaded>

Agreed: The soundness of a decision hinges purely on the propaganda spouted by the agent making the decision.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 19:11

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

A million deaths over a span of 24 years in a country that, as of 2014, has around 30 million inhabitants? That is pretty bad ... but not as bad as the propaganda and fabricated evidence that fuel western imperialism, haha.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 19:14

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

rudatron posted:

The campaign against him was based on fabricated evidence. The people advocating invasion essentially used the US army as their own personal tool to reshape the middle east. They made some wrong assumptions, and we now have an Iraq that is basically destroying itself. This in spite of the billions spent and hundreds of thousands of iraqi deaths. It is the greatest foreign policy failure of the US government in the 21st century, and at least since the Vietnam war.

Incidentally, can you guess why Iraq is fracturing? It may have had something to do with Maliki stuffing shia muslims into all levels of government, thereby creating tension with the sunni and kurds! Granting power to one ethnic group over all others leads to terrible results, who knew? This might be relevant to theocratic governments!

Peta posted:

I'm not talking about the propaganda surrounding it, the execution, or the outcome

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 19:15

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

VitalSigns posted:

Hey the Iraq War is pretty great, except for the reasons we invaded, the actual objectives of the people in charge, everything about it, oh and also the outcome.

But you know, great idea in theory. Why, once America noticed that Saddam was a bad guy (coincidentally right when funding his atrocities stopped advancing American political interests) my goodness we had a moral duty to stop him!

We had a moral duty to stop him long before the decision was made to invade. It's not my fault that it never happened. It's also not my fault that the Bush administration poorly executed the endeavor. It's been clear from the start that I've been giving Iraq as an instance to which just war theory applies. I have also never defended either the objectives of the Bush administration. It's not hard to separate my actual claims from those irrelevant details. You are really dumb, haha.

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 19:24

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

I can run mental circles around anyone here so don't even try arguing with me

# ¿ Jul 16, 2014 19:24

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

SedanChair posted:

Let's kill thousands in the process of choosing leaders for other countries, but woe betide he who calls me a neoconservative. I propose that we slay thousands solely for the purpose of advancing human rights. You could call me a "Scoop Jackson Democrat."

Hussein caused way more deaths than the American intervention did. Sorry buddy

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 14:59

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Who What Now posted:

"Hey, maybe we should not storm into a country, destabilize the government and leave the nation worse off than it was before."

"Oh, so I guess you just love sucking terrorist cock and think our military should kill puppies instead?!"

Truly a stunning level of intellectual honesty from the conservatives in this thread.

It was illegal to own a satellite dish in Iraq under Hussein so I'm pretty sure we left it off better than it was before actually

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:04

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Number of people in this thread who know what it's like to live a single day under a fascist dictator: 0 (zero)

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:05

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

This thread is HEATING UP

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:07

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

McAlister posted:

Television.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/emily.oster/papers/tvwomen.pdf

You can't be what you can't see. People in, say, North Korea can't even conceive of an open democracy because they've never seen it. Show it to them - like showing women in rural India TV shows where wife beating is shocking and unacceptable - and they will want it and move towards it on their own.

Show up with an aircraft carrier and start shelling things ... Well they understand that. Naked shows of force with empty pompous claims of goodness/moral superiority are something they see a lot of.

Be the shining city on the hill. Be a good example. Forget military imperialism. Go for cultural imperialism.

Because it's not a "just war" until you've tried everything else. None of this, "they have oil we want, we've tried nothing, and we are all out of ideas" bullshit.

The Ba'ath Party controlled the media in Iraq so this would not have been possible but I'm glad you're of the opinion that Western countries should work to get more citizens of fascist dictatorships to watch Western TV, as they are being murdered by the tens of thousands

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:13

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

SedanChair posted:

Number of people in this thread who know what it's like to be vaporized by white hot fire from an American bomber because they live under a fascist dictator: 0 (zero)

Agreed, one or two years of civilian wartime casualties compares to the death toll that Iraq suffered under Saddam

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:25

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

McAlister posted:

So you come from an alternate reality where things like the Haitian slave revolt, the American revolution, the French Revolution, etc never happened?

Or where the English monarchy never went from having absolute power to being mostly figureheads?

If open democracies have to be imposed by an outside force to happen there wouldn't be any. And I can't help but note that the homegrown democracies are worlds more stable than the ones imposed by outside force. Patting yourself on the back for creating a puppet democracy or some other unstable situation that collapses the moment you turn your back is silly.

And there is nothing wrong with being so awesome all the other people want their countries be like yours. Theocrats lack the patience for it is all. Give them any power and they'll immediately try to force people to be "good" oblivious to the fact that "goodness" extracted under threat of punishment doesn't actually count.

Well postwar Japan has been pretty stable so I'd say the problem is more with the political/cultural/religious climate of the Arab world

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:27

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

SedanChair posted:

Get purified by suffering, foreigners. It's for your own good.

The civilian casualties inflicted by the US never held a candle to the civilian casualties inflicted by Saddam

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:28

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

You are literally arguing that any sum of civilian casualties is enough to condemn a war that is being fought for the basic freedoms of those civilians, while greater numbers of civilians have been killed on an annual basis by the party that has been restricting their basic freedoms. You have managed to contradict every single normative moral philosophy that I can think of

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:36

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

rudatron posted:

But then that's a reason why the invasion, even as a theoretical idea, was a dumb one! You have just elucidated a reason why it was not simply a matter of implementation that this example of a 'just war' failed, contradicting what you were saying earlier, about it merely being a operational failure!

Nah I don't think it's impossible or even necessarily implausible to install a democracy in the Middle East

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:37

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Widestancer posted:

I think we're all missing the point here in this Theocracy thread.

Any government grounded in Allah is better because there is but one God and that God is Allah.

E: Praise Allah

Nice casual Islamophobia but the Arab world isn't the only place where theocracies exist. The imperialist Christian Global North is a theocracy in all but name

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:39

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Who What Now posted:

Your whitewashing the deaths of civilians. That is what you are doing. You're saying that it's ok to violently kill innocent people because "Well you can't make an omelette without making a couple thousand orphans and cripples."

Actually I'm just saying that the Iraq War was a good idea and I'm accepting the natural assumption that wars generate some number of civilian casualties. I'm not nor have I ever been approving of the way the war was carried out

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 15:44

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Who What Now posted:

No you are approving and condoning the killing of civilians. You can't escape that now, so you might as well own up to it.

OK, sure. So are you when you argue that Hussein should have remained in power. Eat me

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 16:06

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Who What Now posted:

I haven't argued that, though. I'm just pointing out that you're a sociopath who revels in the blood in the innocent (and probably also a massive racist).

What are you gonna do about it

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 16:17

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Who What Now posted:

I was unaware I had to do something about it.

OK well you probably shouldn't just sit there at your computer eyes glazed over baking in frustration

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 16:20

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

Who What Now posted:

I'm sorry, but only one of us is having a hissy for because he was rightfully told he supports the murder of innocent people.

A denizen of the debate section of the Something Awful forums called me a sociopath, what can I do but quiver in a fit of defeated rage

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 16:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 22, 2024 07:33

Peta: Dec 26, 2011

I bet I have way more Facebook friends than you. If I'm such a sociopath then explain that.

# ¿ Jul 17, 2014 16:40

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > When you think about it, living in a theocracy wouldn't be so bad

«‹›2 »