|
Rants
Nov 23, 2006 20:21:37 GMT -5
Post by rincewind on Nov 23, 2006 20:21:37 GMT -5
I thought chicken-hawks were people who felt that our country needs to fight wars, but actively avoided serving in them themselves. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would be good examples there. Whereas Bush Sr, a decorated WWII veteran, would not. I think that's the way things work, anyway.
|
|
|
Rants
Nov 24, 2006 11:12:32 GMT -5
Post by grond on Nov 24, 2006 11:12:32 GMT -5
So. . . our government isn't a chicken-hawk, but its officials are, hmmmm
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Rants
Jan 5, 2007 13:32:08 GMT -5
Post by Dmitri on Jan 5, 2007 13:32:08 GMT -5
Just a random rant... I was in philosophy class (PHIL 327 @ Millersville) and we were reading Nietchze (class is Classics in Existential Pessimism). Our prof (who shall remain nameless) began to launch into one of his famous tirades about Christians. Specifically, about the afterlife. Now let me explain, I am a Christian, so maybe I am a little too close to the situation. But it infuriates me that our society cries and cries for tolerance, while being so completely intolerant of Christianity. We are supposed to tolerate every conceivable lifestyle, religion, belief, opinion, etc., yet if you say "I am a Christian who believes in a literal interpretation of Scripture" it might as well be open season. We are all immediately branded as bigots, homophobes, racist, Nazi... you get the picture. What happened to freedom of expression? Anyway, he uses a Nietchze quote regarding most people being too weak to acknowledge what they truly know (from Twilight of the Idols). Then he launched into this rant about how because Christians mourn at funerals, they really know there is no afterlife, but are too weak to acknowledge it. So I raise my hand, and reply that Christians mourn at funerals, not because we believe we'll never see the loved one again, but because it will be a long time as measured on Earth till that happens. I then follow up with a statement about moral relativism. I think that the weakness of acknowledgment better applies to the atheist who appeals to rules of fair play, or concepts of justice, to explain why stealing, cheating, lying, or murder are wrong. After all, if I cheat on the profs test, he'll appeal to the standard of conduct that I should follow. But doesn't an outside standard that is above humanity's ability to change indicate a Creator for that standard? In the end, I replied, it is the atheist who is too weak to acknowledge what he or she truly knows. Then he threw me out of class (bodily). An amazing example of that liberal tolerance that we are taught to extol.
|
|
|
Rants
Jan 5, 2007 23:19:14 GMT -5
Post by Dragonsrule on Jan 5, 2007 23:19:14 GMT -5
Let me start by saying, the Professor was wrong in how he treated you. He gives non-Christians a bad rep, just like there are a lot of Christians who can lead him to those beliefs.
However if you really go and look at the Bible, it is one of the most inconsistent books ever written. I believe there is One God, but that he is the aspect of ALL religions out there. Until Christians decide to stop going around telling everyone theirs is the only true religion we will always have problems. Since the death of Christ, Christians went from being persecuted, to persecuting people until they converted.
In my life I have gone from being a Christian, to being an Athiest, back to being a Christian, and now I don't even know how to classify myself. I just believe that all religions are an aspect of the same God and we should all just try and get along.
|
|
|
Rants
Jan 5, 2007 23:49:49 GMT -5
Post by rincewind on Jan 5, 2007 23:49:49 GMT -5
Well, Dragonsrule has a point. I keep reading the bible, and it's quite the headache trying to figure things out. It reminds me of Ned Flanders saying "I've done everything the bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!" So saying you literally believe in it tends to create some problems. I've noticed that most people ignore the Old Testament when they say that to make things easier.
In any case, you shouldn't have a prof ranting about Christianity and Christians unless it's a comparative theology class and everything else gets equal time. I doubt he'd say something like that about Muslems, and not just because he's afraid of ending up a bullet-ridden corpse (Disclaimer: Islam is a religion of peace. Please don't kill me).
|
|
|
Rants
Jan 6, 2007 5:34:41 GMT -5
Post by Dragonsrule on Jan 6, 2007 5:34:41 GMT -5
Aye. A lot of people do like to ignore the Old Testament out when it comes to that. However, I keep looking at people throwing around the 10 Commandments, and how it should be on display where they want it. Now it says "Thou shall not commit adultery." , and they say we should only have 1 wife. But King David had 8 wives, after the Isrealite's had been given the 10 Commandments. And his son Solomon according to the Bible had 700 wives and 200 concubines. As long as churches still teach from the Old Testament it needs to be included in any argument.
|
|
Dmitri
Land Owner
D&D Geeks of the World Unite!
Posts: 1,466
|
Rants
Jan 6, 2007 21:41:41 GMT -5
Post by Dmitri on Jan 6, 2007 21:41:41 GMT -5
Yea, in regards the prof, my issue was the logic of his argument, and the display of the "violence inherent in the system". As for the OT, there are many issues there. David was king with many wives, as was Solomon. I think the point is that man is flawed, always, and that God can work through us even so. David also committed murder and adultery (that ugly business with Bathsheba). But his heart was to do right. That was what God looked at. I just want tolerance - for all beliefs. I think the neo-paganism of today makes little real sense, but I am not about to go all Gestapo on a Wiccan, even if I think they are dead wrong. As for interpretation of Scripture and the rest of the OT, I don't want to offend anyone, so maybe I'll leave that alone for now. Man, I wish everyone (Christians most of all, sometimes) would just lighten up and do what they say. Not that I'm perfect (I smoke like a fiend, man), but if we all just let everyone believe as they see fit, and present our rationale in logical, reasonable terms, there'd be no need for the kind of hate that we all see evidenced. Anyway, sounding off for the night...
|
|
|
Rants
Jan 7, 2007 14:16:52 GMT -5
Post by grond on Jan 7, 2007 14:16:52 GMT -5
Well, as far as the "do not cheat" and other similar standards are concerned, they usually exist as more of a social pressure. Law isn't really above man, it's more of an agreed upon (not always fairly or universally) set of standards, and it tends to be noticeably different from culture to culture. Still, a proffesor getting angry because you presented a defense of your own faith is pathetic. Did you tell any authorities? That sort of behavior undermines the education system and shouldn't be left unchecked.
As far as athiests being to weak, I'm not exactly one myself so I don't know. However, it seems that athiest are almost as militant as fundamentalists in some cases, arguing unforgivingly that "THERE IS NO GOD". That point of view seems pretty short sighted. Does it really have any philosophical value?
Oh yeah, I work with "literal interpretationalists" who constantly support notions that the science I place a lot of stock in roundly regects, and I've been labelled as a fool by them for my "beliefs". I can also understand (though not agree with) the negative view points on christians. Too bad that few outspoken can give so many such a bad name.
|
|
|
Rants
Jan 30, 2007 17:49:34 GMT -5
Post by Rincewind on Jan 30, 2007 17:49:34 GMT -5
Ugh, work. Patient- "I can't see with these glasses you gave me!" Me- "OK, what can you read out there with them?"... reads the bottom line with each eye. Me- "Well, it looks like you're seeing well far away..." Px- "I can see that chart, but I can't see when I'm driving" Me- "Well, the reason we have the charts 20 feet away is because that is considered optical infinity, the difference between seeing at that distance and out to the horizon in diopters is about 1/6 D, which is less of a change than any prescription will measure..." Px "I can't see" Me- sigh
Thinking- Yeah, you can't freaking see, you're only reading the bottom line of the chart, after all, I MUST have done something wrong, it's not you getting used to things now, is it? Grr.
|
|
|
Rants
Feb 1, 2007 7:47:53 GMT -5
Post by Antioch on Feb 1, 2007 7:47:53 GMT -5
Help, Help...I'm being repressed!!
It is very easy for us, as humans, to judge others, especially those we believe are wrong or inferior. I believe that is why Jesus tried to impress upon us in several of his lectures to practice tolerance. My favorite is the guy who chastizes another because that person has a splinter in his eye. While the guy himself has a log in his. He really wants us to judge ourselves and take that critical look at ourselves before judging others. Many times our judgement of others is not correct. We can't possibly know all the factors that influence a persons decisions, and often times come to an incorrect conclusion about someone while we don't understand all their underlying motives.
I love when profs invite contraversial dialogue and then kick you out of class when they don't agree. I got kicked out of a class for upsetting the teacher before. I wasn't even trying to either. Oh well.
Rincewind, I love the work dialogue. People are amazing sometimes.
Antioch
|
|
|
Rants
Feb 1, 2007 7:55:01 GMT -5
Post by Antioch on Feb 1, 2007 7:55:01 GMT -5
I don't know if I told you guys yet, but my job lost a major client 3 weeks ago. The client I was working solely with. I, therefor, as of 2 weeks ago got laid off. My last day was yesterday. It really sucks because I had seniority over 7 guys in a 19 person company. I've gotten several leads for additional work, as well as starting up my own company and looking for clients. I have an interview today, wish me luck. This whole time, I've felt like this is more of an opportunity than a punishment, that there is something even better out there for me. I have never had a door shut on me without another opening up. I'll keep you up to date on what happens. Antioch
|
|
|
Rants
Feb 1, 2007 8:23:10 GMT -5
Post by Rincewind on Feb 1, 2007 8:23:10 GMT -5
Ouch. Well, look at it this way, if that's the way they're going to be, you probably didn't want to work there anyway.
Good luck on the job hunt! I was down to one day/week around December/early January but am working 6 days/week now, so you never know.
|
|
|
Rants
Feb 1, 2007 10:37:19 GMT -5
Post by pigdish on Feb 1, 2007 10:37:19 GMT -5
I don't like the thought of man as being inherently flawed. People in the theological past weren't flawed because they had multiple wives or committed murder. It was and is just the way of things. Right and wrong, good and bad, are simply concepts commonly agreed upon by a society.
For example cannibalism is not a universal taboo, homosexuality is a right of passage into adulthood, killing of another human is acceptable given the circumstance.
The afterlife concept is interesting in that it changes with the passage of time and cultures. I find it peculiar, in Christianity, that giving money guarantees entry into the afterlife or moves you ahead of the line. How does that work? Why is there even a line? I remember from my Western Civ class (many many moons ago) in college that suicide wasn't a bad thing until people started killing themselves en mass to get into heaven. So to reassert the power of the church, because they were losing funds, the people in power created a rule that said if you commit suicide you don't go to heaven, roughly paraphrased. By the way, I am not anti-Christianity but I am definitely anti-church. I suppose it is in line with my anti-establishment thinking of power to the people rather than have "da man" tell you what to do.
It really annoys me that it is against the law to be polygamous in our country. As long as that lifestyle isn't a burden on society then the government has no right to tell people what to do.
|
|
|
Rants
Feb 1, 2007 10:55:38 GMT -5
Post by Rincewind on Feb 1, 2007 10:55:38 GMT -5
I find it peculiar, in Christianity, that giving money guarantees entry into the afterlife or moves you ahead of the line. How does that work? Why is there even a line? I think you're referring to the buying and selling of "indulgences", one of the primary things Martin Luther famously railed against when he posted his theses. I believe it had to do with getting something to forgive your sins on earth so you would suffer less time in purgatory for unforgiven sins. To my knowledge, the Catholic church has not done this in quite some time, because of the obvious abuse potential. Eh, just read the wikipedia. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IndulgencesAs far as other reasons to give money, I think it's just "you should give to support the church", and not that you need to to get into heaven or anything. Although there's the whole thing about not being rich as well. *shrug*
|
|
|
Rants
Feb 1, 2007 11:50:43 GMT -5
Post by pigdish on Feb 1, 2007 11:50:43 GMT -5
I should just clarify that when I am saying "anti-church" I am not just referring to the Christian church. Also I feel that the "church" or "mosque", including religious figures, should play a secondary role to the individual's belief and worship in God.
|
|